 |
|
elfstorm
|
|
I love SMAC for various reasons.
I love MoM for various different reasosn.
I was hoping Civ3 would combine the best of both.
Wow - was I ever disappointed.
Civ3 ain't bad, I like it... guess my expectations were too high.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Four stars, no-brainer.
As a change of pace, I played some Disciples II. Fine game, but as far as replay value goes, Civ 3 smokes it. Since the AI is weak in D2, the game puts all the emphasis on scripted campaign games, which is fine, but once the campaigns are played, that's that for me... I'm not going to replay it to see if I can do it faster. D2 does have MP, and runs fast enough and has a small enough scope that MP is viable. That's the whole reason why we picked it to play. Civ 3 is a single player game in nature, but that won't stop a tiny minority from playing MP if and when it becomes available.
IMO, Civ 3's only real competition is Europa Universalis 2, which unfortunately also suffers from weak AI. If anyone has another good strategy game to suggest, I'd like to hear about it.
Personally, I wouldn't waste much time playing a game I considered to be a 2.
I've played pretty much the whole Civ series and its offshoots such as Colonization and SMAC, but not CtP or CtP2 which never interested me.
Last edited by Ironikinit on 11-03-2002 at 23:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Overall, Civ 3 is a huge disappointment. I think CTP2 is a better game.
I gave it 2 stars because by itself, it still is pretty decent. It just isn't up to par with my expectations. It is basically Civ 2 source code with new graphics, new culture, and different unit properties with a rewritten AI.
It seems like the development team didn't do their homework when it came to combat. Modern Armor, for instance, would annhilate regular Tanks in 99.99999 percent of real world scenarios. The perfect example is Desert Storm. The Coalition forces lost 0 tanks to enemy fire. In the "highway of death" battle, the Iraqis lost 160 tanks.
If you are going to only have two main variables in a combat equation, you must assign values to units that make the outcomes realistic. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but given Gulf War statistics, the Modern Armor should at least be 160:1 in attack/defense. But this would make gameplay and other values hard to even out.
A better system would have included these variables:
Range
Firepower
Armor
Mobility
# of units
The through a system of calculation, you get a simple Attack - Defend equation that is determined by those 5 variables. Instead of having 2 units fighting to the death, you have casualties inflicted. Sometimes it might take a few turns for units to fight. This would allow for realistic warfare scenarios such as stalemates. Also, there needs to be a system for POW's. Not every single soldier is wiped out in a battle. Perhaps there could be an option for "Take No Prisoners" or "Make into Slaves".
Unfortunately my ideas have 0 probability of making it into a future CIV title. I guess I've got to finish my degree in Computer Science and write the game myself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rotten999
|
 |
Milwaukee, WI
Mar 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
I got over the "this sucks" phase after playing for awhile, and now consider Civ3 to be a fun diversion. A lot of the new features are very cool (civ traits, uniques, culture, borders you can actually see, better negotiation, et. al.). Once I realized this wasn't Civ2, nor was it trying to be, I liked the game more. Combat isn't perfect, and I've learned to like the corruption "problem." I especially like how a conquered city is virtually useless for production while the war is on, as it logically would be.
Civ1 = Way too much
Civ2 = Way too much, squared
Call to Power = Played it maybe three times. I got so sick of units telling me they were "tired," of forty turns of wonder production going down the tiolet when another civ got there a turn before me, of "public works" to build roads and such, of cities producing nothing for some reason, and on and on. Yuck.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
Iīd give it a 2. Some very nice ideas (culture, the new support system, etc.) but poorly executed. But itīs getting there, maybe after a few more patches it could get a passing grade... |
Surely I had too much great expectation from a Civ new game: I hoped in some great new game concept, a state of the art general appeal... a design team devoted to revolutionize the old original concept.
Of course I was a dreamer: Firaxis and Sid can't afford to do brave experiment, so they develop a honest, enough solid (after a long round of patches) if not properly balanced IMHO, conservative sequel .
I play somewhat the game, but I never feel in love with it as I did with Railroad Tycoon, Civ 1 and 2, and partially with SMAC. Of course could be my fault, but I'm a player and customer as everyone here, so you can't sue me, I suppose 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
Iīm amazed that like almost 70% gave this game a passing grade... |
Is it possible that almost all the many people who were great critics of the game, such as Libertarian, are now busy doing other things having given up on it?? Damn straight. Only the gullible are left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Surely I had too much great expectation from a Civ new game: I hoped in some great new game concept, a state of the art general appeal... a design team devoted to revolutionize the old original concept.
Of course I was a dreamer: Firaxis and Sid can't afford to do brave experiment, so they develop a honest, enough solid (after a long round of patches) if not properly balanced IMHO, conservative sequel .
I play somewhat the game, but I never feel in love with it as I did with Railroad Tycoon, Civ 1 and 2, and partially with SMAC. Of course could be my fault, but I'm a player and customer as everyone here, so you can't sue me, I suppose |
Right on, dude!  I wouldnīt mind so much if the game was actually better than itīs predecessors. Which itīs not! I whined about this quite a bit since january and I still canīt figure out why they didnīt take the concept from SMAC and made a sequel to that instead. If they incorporated some of the concepts from Civ3 with SMAC it would be the greatest game ever made!
Instead they give us this half-assed clone of Civ2... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2002 07:39
Different strokes I guess, Itīs exactly what Civ3 didnīt do for me (unlike all itīs predecessors).
|
|