|
Sargeant_Kirby
|
 |
Zagreb, Croatia
Mar 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Hi 2 you all,
I realized that many of my whining about CIV3 bugs, no-so-fun solutions etc. is quite inadequate to show how much I am dissapointed with CIV3.
I installed the Planetary pack and finished a low-difficulty game in two days. I think i found out what's wrong with both games.
CIV3: If you want to win on difficult levels (Monarch+) the tempo of the game must be fast. You MUST attack your neighbours, don't care about diplomatic status (its the only way to build temples and units in captured cities fast), go for the important resources and expand, expand, expand till the end of the game. If you get lucky, you will build your spaceship with a two-turn difference from another powerful civilization.
Conclusion: The only way to win the game in CIV3 is making war from time to time.
SMAC: You can win the game in as many ways (corner global market, transcend, destroy, supreme leader) as in CIV3 but the style of play to achieve these victories is MUCH MORE DIVERSE. Example: If you need 50000 energy to corner the global market, you won't spend this money on upgrades or tech. In CIV3, all you need to win IS tech (firepower = tech, culture = wonders = tech, spaceship = tech, UN leader = sucks)
But, the SMAC becomes boring after the first 100-150 turns of play. In these turns you define your faction profile (which is good) , after that you are just going in for the victory (type). In CIV3 there is no real civ profile, you just go for everyting. Just as every other civ in play.
|
28-03-2002 17:35
|
|