 |
| |
|
|
StrategicKing2
|
|
Warren Michigan
May 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Recently, at a local computer show, I found civ 3 on the $15- table and relented and purchased it. Wow, does this game suck!
One of the slowest moving games I have ever played.
Over a year ago I posted on what Civ 3 had to acomplish to be a good game. They failed misserable on each and every point I made. This made me wonder :Why did they have a Civ 3 suggestion forum if they were not going to listen and adapt to what some of the most expierenced Civers around suggested such as myself and Eyes and Markus?
I was, like many of you, looking forward to an improved version of Civ 2, a little more improvements then a patch, but a game that looked and felt the same. I am so disapointed.
As for Civ being dead, I admit then I am getting bored with it myself. Nobody I currently play can match me on skill and will play on a board large enough to allow all aspects of civ to be used. Nobody I play uses advanced trade strategies, thus the only way they win is by sheer luck. I continuelly explain the value of trade and nobody listens and wants to learn and adapt.
Worse, trade in Civ 3 is now so obsecure, I hate it. The most fun I have in Civ was delivering caravans to optimum efficency.
I sure hope I win the damn lottery so I can build a civ style game myself and put these incompatant bastards out of business.
In lew of that, mister fireaxis, next time you attempt constructing a game, why not hire me, 28 years of game playing expierence.
(By the way, Avalon Hill used to send me there new games as I was an official play tester and had many articles posted in The General and contributed greatly to games such as : Rise and Decline of The Third Reich (3rd edition) , Russian Campaign, The Civil war and that nightmare of complexity-The Longest Day.)
Just a little Resume by The King.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Strat how many times do I have to tell you not to post on my threads?
"They failed misserable on each and every point I made. This made me wonder :Why did they have a Civ 3 suggestion forum if they were not going to listen and adapt to what some of the most expierenced Civers around suggested such as myself and Eyes and Markus?"
Actually I never made an attempt to post on the civ 3 suggestions forums. I've known for a long time that civ 3 wouldn't be any good and that no amount of suggestions would ever make it good. To understand one needs only to look at the other games that were released.
"Nobody I currently play can match me on skill and will play on a board large enough to allow all aspects of civ to be used. Nobody I play uses advanced trade strategies, thus the only way they win is by sheer luck. I continuelly explain the value of trade and nobody listens and wants to learn and adapt."
If it weren't for the fact that I don't care, and nobody else does either, I would go ahead and make a fool of you. But again, nobody is watching, the game is dead and I have no audience.
"I sure hope I win the damn lottery so I can build a civ style game myself and put these incompatant bastards out of business."
Why trade one incompetence for another?
"In lew of that, mister fireaxis, next time you attempt constructing a game, why not hire me, 28 years of game playing expierence."
Why hire a computer geek that works from his home on a computer and has no life and finds it cool to brag on the zone about going to the local bar? Tough question. What they really needed were people like Markus who have the programming background as well as the gaming background. I'm not even saying I should have been a play tester, but I sure as hell would have made the game ten times better than this. No amount of patching can ever make this game good. It is fundamentally flawed, the basic rules have destroyed the game. Even if they gave us a million options to edit the game, it would only further destroy any chance it had at popularity. Nobody seems to understand that. Mods are only good for SP, same with editing tools. MP has to have a set standard if it is to succeed. No game can survive that has to be heavily moded in order for it to be enjoyable. I can't find the words to explain just how bad this game really is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"Who upon trying CIVIII, found that their normal scripted stratagies won't work. And since there is no MP yet, can't even claim that they are the best in the world. Those that whine that horror of all horror's "LUCK" has been introduced into the game."
Don't be stupid rah, please. I no longer enjoy making people look like morons as much as I did, but in this case I'm going to make an exception. The AI is far far easier to beat in civ3 than it is in civ2. It doesn't even change gov. until you finally change gov. The only reason it's even able to keep up in tech speed is because there are caps on what you can do. Therefore a civ with 100 cities will research at the same rate as a civ with only 10 cities. Fun fun. They've taken expansion and war right out of the game. You don't get anything for having more cities, just alot more corruption. And war...the AI still builds warriors in the modern era. And the sad thing of it all is that the warriors have a very good chance at winning. Tell me what new strategies can be derived from this game? All I see is strategies that have been taken out. I see alot more outside factors that now influence the game and put "LUCK" as a far greater opponent than the AI. The only resources I find I truly want to colonize are cattle and wheat. Otherwise there's the nice expanses of desert, mountains, and forests that I somehow find useless to expand into. That too was part of a way to curb human expansion. Culture isn't even a strategy. How is clicking on temples and cathedrals a strategy? Wheres the strategy in wonder building? Whoever starts the wonder first builds first. Where is the thought in that? Where is the strategy in acquiring resources? Where is the build strategies in order to maximize city efficiency? The only place to build in this game is on grassland and anyone can see that. All I see from civ 3 is alot of things taken out, not alot of things put in. Strategy? You show me strategy because I sure as hell don't see the strategy in this game. All I see is a watered down civ2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
StrategicKing2
|
|
Warren Michigan
May 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
First: Its still the internet, a great bastion of free speach so Ill post any where I darn well feel like.
Second:I am a game player, a rules designer and critic of rules. I have tremendous history as this. The last thing FireAxis needed was some computer geek, which is not what I am as I barely can figure out how to turn on my computer or alter program files, he needed someone to help in rules design as he had access to some great programers with technical ability but lacking playability expierence.
Third: Rah, though you have never seen my Civ genius up close and I am positive you would be just another victem and as eleguantly as you wrote your post, you are delusianal if you believe that most civ games are not decided by huts or starting position between expierenced players. this was one of my biggest complaint because it need not be. There is a term which was stressed to me by thoose in charge of Avalon Hills play testing dept., that term is playability-in other words, make each player in the game a chance to win from the very start of the game. this does not exist in many of the starting positions I have seen. I had expectations of Civ 3, it failed to do what I thought it should. I am disapointed. Can it be fixed? Do i see new things I like? Answer is yes to both, but....a lot of work is yet needed to make it playable.
And , make no mistake- if it is fixed and multiplayer comes out, I will play and i will win and I will master it...Untill then i will continue to try and find a civ 2 player good enough to duel with me at med+, small land, cont, wet warm and 2 x 2. I have yet to meet my equal, and pray ever day that I will someday as I thrive on competition. The more i think I am going to lose due to being out played, the more i try, and the more I enjoy the thrill of the hunt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Has anyone here ever seen me whine about huts? Has anyone here ever seen me whine about start location? Amazing how you consider luck such a big factor in civ2 while I on the other hand don't. I guess that's the difference between me and you. I accept that luck is a factor and find ways to deal with it or move on. You on the other hand base your entire game around it and find a new setting each week to call yourself the best at. Now stop filling my thread with your garbage and get lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
"I addept well, so I like to see it included. It keeps things fresh. If they could equalize starting positions in mp III it could be a fun game."
So in other words you suck and you need some sort of other influence in order to keep the playing field level so that you don't lose to everyone? I understand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ah, a sep 2001 newbie. How nice. First of all, it's not really possible to dominate anyone in civ3. There are caps on everything. Second, I think I specifically stated that the AI in civ3 is easier than the AI in civ2. I would suggest learning how to read. All the old strats work, there's just caps on them now. There's a cap on the amount of cities, the tech rate, how fast you can build a wonder, how fast you can expand, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
StrategicKing2
|
|
Warren Michigan
May 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I hear this all the time by you people..."adapt to the games situation"....Bull....I get 2 free citys by 3700 bc and you warior code , adapt then big fella..You will lose everytime no matter what you do. You get stuck behind 3 rungs of forests with no resources and I start with a gold mine and lots of huts around, you lose, everytime, again, no matter how you adapt.
Put simply, the programing of this game is so bad, that from the very start of the game you sometimes will have no chance to win no matter what you do. I can accept this, however a win when the other player is put at such a dismal disadvantage is empty. Losing knowing you never had a chance is frustrating. And worse yet you play for hours only to find in the end that skill was not a factor in the game. My point is simple, civ 3 with a few changes to civ 2 could have made each game playable (each side having a chance to win from beging and game decided by skill) but it failed to do this and only created a game flawed with the same old problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Species8472
|
|
re-read, re-write, redo, undo
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
Without zoc, a lot of the old strats have to be modified. You can't block fortified on that mountain.
RAH |
uh... there is no effective zoc in civ2?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Age Of Empires 2: The Conquerors. That game is light years ahead of civ3 in terms of graphics, programming, support, every possible thing I can think of. And it came out about 3 years earlier than civ3. You should see the screen shots for Age Of Mythology. They make age of empires 2 look like ****. So you can imagine comparing civ3 to AOM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
War4ever
|
 |
I live amongst the Red Sox Nation
Jan 1970
time: 21:16
|
|
its not that the starting positions in civ3 are any more uneven in civ3 than they were in civ2, its just that unlike civ2 where you could wander until you found a better spot, you can't really affoard to in civ3. Some might say this prevents the human from acquiring alot of NON units.....and this could be viewed as a good thing.
civ2 has poor starting locations, which if your opponent has a decent or good one, means game over against worthy opposition. The same in civ3 so this bone of contention with many players hasn't been fixed which is a shame.
huts don't factor into play as much in civ3, which could be viewed as a good thing.
the only early difference in civ3 for buildings , is that i build temples earlier than i would if i were playing civ2.
However due to caps on science and some nasty corruption flaws, the idea of infastructure is based mainly on culture, not trade in civ3
Culture is a weapon that is a fresh idea, but not implemented the way it should have been. A culture victory on deity is tough to achieve, but its too easy to absorb enemy cities within your lands.
Many buildings are rendered obsolete by the unrealistic corruption calculations. You are punished too severely for expanding too far from your capital.
REX (ICS) has been hampered..... many would say this is a good thing. However on standard maps, you can easily put 12 cities around your capital, many shariing borders and still be fine. Just because culture has expanded your borders, it doesn't mean your going to use all the squares. In fact most cities only need 3-4 squares to properly rush in despotism, which you will be in for a long portion of the game.
Monarchy is just useless
Razing cites is interesting and at times necessary. However razing a whole empire would cause panic and this seems a tad unrealistic/bad for gameplay.
leaders.....those who get the early ones are laughing all the way to the bank, those who don't , your out of luck. This isn't a good concept either. Though i suppose for diplo purposes, being able to write your nations history and state that Darius led your troops to victory is kinda cool
Diplomacy is good for diplogaming, i like the idea of sanctions and such, but they should be allowed ealier in the game. The cost of subversion is very high....again some might say this is a good thing. Many of you will just say its too expensive.
There are other points i could make too but i am running out of gas......
Personally i don't like the game the way it is right now..... i feel as though i am playing an activision game, not a sid meier game.
With alot of hard work, flaws can and will be worked out.....
However that said, i will never like the look of the terrain, ever!
Merry Christmas and heres to hoping no one gets civ3 ... i mean coal in their stockings 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozzy you are one stupid ****.
When we would play you'd quit the game after 5 turns or so complaining about the huts or your start position or some other factor. Cursing the stupid luck of the game and refusing to play a game out unless the luck favored you.
Nice try, I don't think I remember those games. If you'd like to prove this, you know how to reach me. As for the whole "forumla" thing, did you not read a thing I wrote? Obviously not hence my first conclusion, you are one stupid ****. Now stupid ****, go re-read what I said. I said the AI is easier in this game than the last. That means that I have already crushed the AI and have found it completely unworthy. So tell me stupid ****, how does that mean I can't adapt? There's not that much to adapt to, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't played the game. The game is the EXACT same thing as civ2 except now there are caps and other little things to slow you down. That's all. This game's only update was to make the graphics worse, screw up the combat system, and to slow the human down to the AI speed. But again, you're a stupid **** and can't read nor have you played the game so how would you know?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Yes the game does have considerable flaws. I posted 8 or 9 changes that will have to be made for MP.
A lot of the complaints that I have seen here, refer to the limits that slow the human player down so the AI can keep up. As far as I'm concerned those are not important if there is no AI in the game. 
This does give me hope that a good MP game is possible. (if all my suggestions, with a few others that I missed are incorporated)
It's important that all of us diehard MPs try this game and figure out what needs to be done. I look to the "Eyes", "GMs", "War4",
"Xins", "SKs", "Mings" and many others to provide the suggestions that will FIX the game for MP. Don't just dismiss the game, provide constructive suggestions. Whether they'll listen is immaterial, if we don't make suggestions.
I may dissagree with many of you on how much luck should be in the game, but it's just that, A preference. Don't use it as an excuse to dismiss any of my other ideas.
Let's get cracking here. Time is running out.
Rich
And on a side note, we only have ourselves to blame for the sorry state of SP because the developers were aware how badly we trashed the AI in II, and were forced to the drastic and sucky programming changes to slow the "EXPERTS" down. While they only partially suceeded, the cost to the "Lack of FUN" in Civ was payed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2001 08:16
.
|