I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II

[Robert Plomp]

It's because I'm playing a conquest game and hitting the max limit on cities.

I think playing a conquest game results in having corrupted cities.
That's not so strange I think. Of course it's not nice, you would prefer to conquer the world while the people are happily loving you in their houses...... but I think that would be quiet surrealistic.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by CyberShy
with 'fatal' bug I mean: It really matters.
the interception bug is fatal to gameplay.

Still love the game very much though
Ray K, I remember we were fighting about corruption.....
I see you changed mind

A "fatal" bug would be exactly that - fatal to the software involved, as in the software would be unusable. Civ3 is usable as released; it has no fatal bugs. The interception bug is best classified as "serious", meaning there is no reasonable work-around.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ray K
It's because I'm playing a conquest game and hitting the max limit on cities.

hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

[Special_K]

Originally posted by Ray K


Corruption is still a huge problem if you expect any productivity out of your captured cities. I just let them grow slowly and feed the war machine from my core cities.

It would probably be better to raze them instead.

The problem is if you raze they citys the expansion happy AI goes in and builds cities in between the few you do decide to keep.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MisterMuppet

Great a November Whinefest, and me just back from Munich last month. Now where did I put my Stein.

The Beaujolais Nouveau are just coming out.

[Robert Plomp]

A "fatal" bug would be exactly that - fatal to the software involved

yeah yeah, you're right.
you know what I mean, don't you ?

[jones]

The jury's still out on this puppy. Maybe I'm just jaded, but when I play SMAC and civ2 they offer just as many FUN strategies as they always did.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by MarkG
hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

Oh please. That is already such a tired, old argument.

This game is called CIVILIZATION for a reason. It is the third in a series of world conquest games. It is reasonable to expect there to be some similarities. Sure, tactics will change but the overall point of the game should remain the same. My tactics for conquest in Civ3 are unlike what I used in Civ2.

If they repackaged Warcraft and called it Civilization 4, would you be singing the same tune?

Quit apologizing for Firaxis. They goofed with the corruption levels and have essentially admitted so by saying that they will be addressing it in a patch. There's nothing wrong with mistakes as long as they are identified and corrected.

[MarkG]

at some point we will have to decide if we want a new game or the same game with better graphics....

btw, civ is an empire managment game, not a world conquest one...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MarkG
at some point we will have to decide if we want a new game or the same game with better graphics....

btw, civ is an empire managment game, not a world conquest one...

No, it's both.

[Robert Plomp]

No, it's not both. MarkG is right.
Sometimes war is needed to mange your empire.
But the more war you will make, the less you'll be able to manage your empire (corruption)

It's a personal decision, you can play civ3 the way you want.
But it's not a world conquest game.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by CyberShy
No, it's not both. MarkG is right.
Sometimes war is needed to mange your empire.
But the more war you will make, the less you'll be able to manage your empire (corruption)

It's a personal decision, you can play civ3 the way you want.
But it's not a world conquest game.

Civ is not an empire management game! Managing your empire ismerely the means to world conquest.

This is not a chicken and egg argument, either. World conquest has always been a victory condition for the game. In the original game, you could thwart your enemy's launching of the spaceship by MILITARILY taking his capital. In the original game, the UN allowed you to strategically declare war and peace -- a military benefit.

Even cultural assimilation in Civ3 is merely another means for capturing your opponent's cities. Conquest is what this game is and has always been about. Managing your empire to produce optimal science, production and food has always been a means to further conquest.

If you just want to manage resources, then SimCity is the game for you.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ray K
World conquest has always been a victory condition for the game.

but NOT the only one...

even more, civ3 adds more victory conditions...

In the original game, you could thwart your enemy's launching of the spaceship by MILITARILY taking his capital.

irrelevant....

In the original game, the UN allowed you to strategically declare war and peace -- a military benefit.

irrelevant as well

Even cultural assimilation in Civ3 is merely another means for capturing your opponent's cities.

or you can say that capturing cities is a way to increase your culture

Conquest is what this game is and has always been about. Managing your empire to produce optimal science, production and food has always been a means to further conquest.

If you just want to manage resources, then SimCity is the game for you.

if you dont like managing resources, go play warcraft....

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by MarkG
hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

Everyone needs to have this tattooed to their foreheads.

As with every new game that is truly new, there will be some things that we will like and somethings that we won't. Expecting to like everything or whining to get them to change it to what you perceive is right, is not going to happen, nor should it happen.

[zapperio]

I have to go with the empire management argument vs the world conquest one as it is the only way to explain a really fun game I had as the Indians on regent. On normal Pangea w8 civs I was landlocked and surrounded by 5 civs. I never went to war, I never had to defend my cities and I had only some of the strategic resources. By the end of the game I was on top in culture, pop, tech and second in land.

I spent the game trading, building my empire, racing for wonders and manipulating the AI to attack each other to free up land and waste resources. One of the best games I've had so far and a game that showed me just how far we've come since Civ2.

Zap

[CyberGnu]

Well Steve and others, why are you spending time defending the game?

If we who complain about the game are just crackpot whiners, why not just let us be? the 'whining threads' would disappear from the first page, and no one would care.

Or is it that n.c. hit the nail on the head with his theory on what whining about the whiners entail?

Furthermore, I don't think any of us complain because we particularly enjoy complaining. We're hoping that the game will be improved, or at least the mistakes won't be repeated.

OK, I guess this might be a futile endeavor, as even a demented chicken should have known better than repeat the CTP debaucle... Beta-test beta-test beta-test!!!

As it is, I don't think civ3 has the longevity that civ2 had... It might have if the most glaring bugs are fixed, it might not, I don't know. Chances are that some other game will capitalize on the good parts while avoiding the bad, and implementing some novel things of their own, just like MOO and MOM did from old civ1.

And if civ3 becomes just another dozen game, found in the bargain bin in six months, what are the odds of a civ4 coming out? And even if it comes out, how much resources is going to be invested in it?

I want civ3 to be the greatest game to date. But it just isn't. Five days after buying it I returned it and started playing Age of Kings and HOMM3 again.

I'll propably buy it again if the game play issues are patched, but I'm not exactly holding my breath...

[Ray K]

Originally posted by MarkG
[i]World conquest has always been a victory condition for the game.[/i[

but NOT the only one...

even more, civ3 adds more victory conditions...

Yes, a diplomatic victory and a cultural victory.

In the original game, you could thwart your enemy's launching of the spaceship by MILITARILY taking his capital.

irrelevant....

not even remotely. It was indicative of the primacy of military conquest over scientific progress. Military force had the final say in Civ1. In fairness, they did remove this option in Civ2 by making the launching of the ship the victory condition.

In the original game, the UN allowed you to strategically declare war and peace -- a military benefit.

irrelevant as well

what?!? just because you can only respond with "irrelevant" does not make it so. Did you even play Civ1? The UN had significant military benefits in that game. And as long as the new game is entitled 'Civilization', it certainly is relevant to expect there to be some similarities in the overall goals of the games.

Even cultural assimilation in Civ3 is merely another means for capturing your opponent's cities.

or you can say that capturing cities is a way to increase your culture

If you want to redefine capturing cities with culture as a form of empire management instead of conquest, then I consider that a complete capitulation of the point. Go redefine words on someone else.

If you just want to manage resources, then SimCity is the game for you.
if you dont like managing resources, go play warcraft....

I would say that the goals of Warcraft and Civ3 are far more similar than that of SimCity.

You could manage your empire perfectly in Civ3 and still lose miserably unless you are willing to roll up your sleeves and do some conquering. The people that like to play Civ3 like turtles hiding in their shells have had their bone thrown to them: the culture victory. I've played it once that way and it was as boring as hell. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by zapperio
I have to go with the empire management argument vs the world conquest one as it is the only way to explain a really fun game I had as the Indians on regent. On normal Pangea w8 civs I was landlocked and surrounded by 5 civs. I never went to war, I never had to defend my cities and I had only some of the strategic resources. By the end of the game I was on top in culture, pop, tech and second in land.

Funny, I had a similar game where I was landlocked and surrounded by civs (on a pangea map).

By the end of the ANCIENT ERA I was on top in culture, pop, tech, and in land.

This game is built for combat and conquest, whether you choose to play it that way or not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MarkG
hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

Translation:

Kick me in the Jimmy!

KICK ME IN THE JIMMY!

This game was obviously rushed and that fact alone is starting to taint Firaxis's reputation with a lot of gamers. I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say that I would have been much happier if Sid had "pulled a Blizzard" and released the game when it was done.

[Zurai001]

Originally posted by Ray K
You could manage your empire perfectly in Civ3 and still lose miserably unless you are willing to roll up your sleeves and do some conquering. The people that like to play Civ3 like turtles hiding in their shells have had their bone thrown to them: the culture victory. I've played it once that way and it was as boring as hell. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Yes, and if it was a conquer-the-world game, that would be impossible. In a war game, the ONLY way to win is to conquer the world (gasp). In civ, there are more non-military ways to win than military ways. The combat-centricness of previous Civ games is just because of poor AI IMHO. They couldn't compete with you so they declared war.

[Buster13]

Hi guys, new to Apolyton but exp. at Civ...so gimme some room.

In what...two weeks?...since Civ3 has hit the shelves, all it seems that I've heard are complaints. You all have a great game here, which does have some faults. If Firaxis knows what's important to thier bottom line they'll take care of these problems. I don't see them ignoring thier fan base...it would be suicide.

Corruption should be something like what it is...but it should be able to be "fixed" (in game play) while still allowing a conquest strategy.

The combat system should be a little more complex, not on the outside, but on the inside (include things like "Armor Class" and "Armor Penetration" or the like). I have noticed, though, that the whinefest about Barbarians always losing and weaker AI units repeatedly beating stronger player units is not true...at least on my PC....

The Civ3Edit should give the creator more freedoms, but then I think we all agree on that.

Some inaccuracy should be built into the Foreign Advisor

Some more features should be built into the Trade Advisor

Obviously, bugs should be fixed.

There are probably a million little things I could ***** about, but I'm already grasping for straws. It's a good game now, and probably will get better...we just have to make sure Firaxis supports thier work.

Oh, BTW...it's a world conquest game primarily. Firaxis has done quite a bit with this edition to make direct military conquest more difficult...but it should still be a viable strategy, just one you won't get any returns from other than eliminating other civs. Yes, empire management is a huge part of the game, but I agree with Ray...you manage in order to win...even if that means you manage in order to win diplomatically.

E

[CDN_Harbinger]

... but, if I really enjoyed Civ3, say the way I enjoyed Civ2 and SMAC/X when they were first released I wouldn't be spending a whole lot of time here - if any. I would be emersed in the game until the wee hours of the morning, eating at the computer, sometimes falling asleep at the computer or simply getting none, dragging myself away to work, and then coming home to only sit back down to the computer.

So I guess my question is: What are all you supposedly happy Civ3 campers wasting time here attacking the "whiners" when you could be playing this 'fantastic' game from Firaxis/Infogrames?

As it is, I still stay up to the wee hours of the morn' playing SMAC/X with a handful of friends and only take time to read or rant or rave here when I am on break or lunch at work.

(I do not like the term whiners by the way. A great many people, myself included, have some issues with this game - admittedly some issues are more valid than others.)

In the end, everybody will have different views/opinions about the game. It's IMPOSSIBLE to make everyone happy. Even, when editors are added and MP is added and fighters intercept correctly some players will still be unhappy. YOU should be happy they're venting here and not blowing up the local PC store where you might be shopping.

You don't like the "whiners"? IGNORE THEM! 'Nuff said...

[Howling Chip]

Cybernu, one of the reasons people post why they like the game is that many post readers are looking to this site to determine how soon they will buy the game.

Anyway, I bought into the "new Civ" concept way back when Firaxis kept hyping the importance of culture. From day one I recognized that even when I would play a game of military conquest, it would have to be done differently. When I play an expansion game, I've yet to figure out a way to support a far flung city(s) unless I am willing to pay cash for improvements and transport military units for its support. And that's OK with me. With over 100 hours pf play at Regent Level vs 7 AI Civs on Large Maps, I like this new Civ.

Air units and Sea units, I like the way bombarment works where they do not eliminate ground units, only pound them down to one health. I like that things do survive nuclear strikes. I hope they do not change this.

Holding doen the shift key to speed AI moves speeds things up enough for me.

If they patch corruption, I sincerely hope they keep it as an impediment to easy expansion/growth. If they mess with the AI expansion logic, or any other aspects of the game I hope it does not make moving to King or Diety (with AI cheats as part of those difficulty levels) the only way for the game to be challenging.

MOO, and SMAC and even CIV II were not as challenging as this game after 100 hours of play.

If Sea Fotresses, Air Interdiction, need adjusted, I hope they don't make them sure thing defenses. If they make nukes cheaper to build, cool. Just a little cheaper though.

The game is a challenge. In its currently coded state, it is fun to play. If you are willing to adjust to CIV III's paradigm. Worried the AI will sneak in to claim the area where you razed the enemy city? Well have a settler waiting before you raze the city. Don't want the AI putting cities on you coast on a little sliver of land? Have a worker sit int the square(s) until your borders expand, if its that important to you. With continued play I have found new tactical and strategy solutions. For those that continue to perplex me, I have faith that eventually I will figure it out. Just like in CIV II, learning how the economic, military, diplomatic, et al model works. With time, alternate strategies become apparent, with enough play and enough determination.

To Firaxis I would say be sure you don't break CIV III by trying to fix it.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Ray K


Yes, a diplomatic victory and a cultural victory.

Exactly, because Firaxis didn't want to FORCE players to conquer the world if they did not wish to win this way. You could say "that's what the spaceship is for", which is correct, but at least now folks have a chance to play the game almost anyway they want, except for getting "peaceful" great leaders, but oh well.

not even remotely. It was indicative of the primacy of military conquest over scientific progress. Military force had the final say in Civ1. In fairness, they did remove this option in Civ2 by making the launching of the ship the victory condition.

Exactly, who has ever completly ruled the world through military? No one. If you have even listened to any interview Sid had where he mentioned the goals for the game he has always wanted more ways for people to play and win, why do you think ANY new features were added after Civ1 if the ONLY way you were supposed to win was militarily??

Oh, and some life and culture changing scientific advances have come not through war, but through plain science because people wanted to do something better. The "military way" has not *ever* been the only way to advance, it was merely a tool that *some* cultures have used to grow.

what?!? just because you can only respond with "irrelevant" does not make it so. Did you even play Civ1? The UN had significant military benefits in that game. And as long as the new game is entitled 'Civilization', it certainly is relevant to expect there to be some similarities in the overall goals of the games.

There are similarities, to win the game and rule the world. Also in the fact you discover advances, expand and hopefully don't get crushed in the meantime.

Everything else HAS in one way or another CHANGED, which is good. Otherwise we'd be playing Civ2001 which would be nothing but the same broken, abusable game as Civ1 with new graphics.

Some apparently wish it was Civ1/2 with better graphics anyway.

If you want to redefine capturing cities with culture as a form of empire management instead of conquest, then I consider that a complete capitulation of the point. Go redefine words on someone else.

Well let's see... If you didn't manage your cities, empire defenses and diplomacy well enough to stick around and be able to builkd enough culture buildings to have those cities convert then you'd have done a piss-poor job of empire management wouldn't you?

Although I do agree the game isn't about "empire management" NEITHER is it about "global conquest". The game, in it's truest form is about "Civilization advancement" and all that entails, city building, city government, getting better deals via diplomacy, discovering all the tech's that allow you to survive & thrive, etc.

I would say that the goals of Warcraft and Civ3 are far more similar than that of SimCity.

*insert sound of buzzer here*

Wrong!

Warcraft is about conflict, pure and simple. You gather resources to build an army and beat on someone. There is no other way to win.

Civ3 allows you to amass an army and go fighting, or try to win through diplomacy, culture, etc. There is MORE than one way to win, and if you don't manage your entire empire efficiently, fall to far behind in technology, piss the wrong player off, etc, you could lose. There is much more strategy involved in Civ3 than in Warcraft where you basically can spam (seemingly) endless amounts of the same units and win through sheer numbers.

You could manage your empire perfectly in Civ3 and still lose miserably unless you are willing to roll up your sleeves and do some conquering. The people that like to play Civ3 like turtles hiding in their shells have had their bone thrown to them: the culture victory. I've played it once that way and it was as boring as hell. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Exactly, because you don't like the fact that those cities you capture 1/2 way around the world don't instantly, and VERY UNREALISTICALLY, bow down and kiss your feet when you conquer them doesn't mean Civ3 is a bad game. It means that you are whining and complaining because the game plays more realistically now and you can't easily play the same way you have in the previous two games of the series.

You should be OVERJOYED the game is not merely Civ2 with better graphics instead of *****ing because the only way you play isn't as good anymore. I believe before the game came out Jeff Morris and others blatantly said that the game could be won militarily but that it would be HARD!! Now then, with that being said, why don't you either find a way to win with the limitations in the game that are realistically based or take the game back and go play more of the same old thing that you had in Civ2/SMAC?

Oh, and before you stereotypically lump me in with all the "Civ3 is the best thing ever" group, know this. Civ3 does have flaws, IMHO, and a few bugs (mainly with air superiority, corruption is NOT A BUG), but it is FAR better than Civ2 and SMAC. I just hope FIraxis doesn't listen to the whiners who want a SMAC2/CIV2.5 conversion instead of a game that actually has differences.

(Oh, and does anyone else think it hillarious when people ***** about how Civ3 is "broken" and then say they took it back to go play Civ2?? ROFL )

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Ray K


Funny, I had a similar game where I was landlocked and surrounded by civs (on a pangea map).

By the end of the ANCIENT ERA I was on top in culture, pop, tech, and in land.

This game is built for combat and conquest, whether you choose to play it that way or not.

Doesn't mean the ONLY way to play is through conquest. Accept that and you'll feel a lot better.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by CDN_Harbinger

So I guess my question is: What are all you supposedly happy Civ3 campers wasting time here attacking the "whiners" when you could be playing this 'fantastic' game from Firaxis/Infogrames?

Some of us actually have to work and since civing at the office is not allowed we browse the troll pages. Me, I'd much rather be home playing an excellent game than defending it.

Zap

[Soapyfrog]

I like the corruption, and the combat, and pretty much everything else about this game.

The ACTUAL REAL ISSUES are as follows:

1) City governor AI is busted in parts... frex trying to get me to build swordsmen or galleons in the industrial age
2) AI opponent: much improved but still builds wacky stuff (was that a warrior I just saw in the modern age?) and rarely seems to upgrade military, probably related to the City governor AI problem
3) Culture absorption of a city is REALLY tough to predict and destroys all military units in the city... shouldn't they at least repatriate?

None of this breaks the game in any way, it would just be nice to see that fixed. I can't think of a single other problem. There must be a few minor bugs that need fixing but they haven't been noticeable for me.

BTW I have probably spent more hours playing Civ I, II, and SMAC than many of you have been alive, so I am at least marginally qualified.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by CDN_Harbinger
... but, if I really enjoyed Civ3, say the way I enjoyed Civ2 and SMAC/X when they were first released I wouldn't be spending a whole lot of time here - if any. I would be emersed in the game until the wee hours of the morning, eating at the computer, sometimes falling asleep at the computer or simply getting none, dragging myself away to work, and then coming home to only sit back down to the computer.

So I guess my question is: What are all you supposedly happy Civ3 campers wasting time here attacking the "whiners" when you could be playing this 'fantastic' game from Firaxis/Infogrames?

As it is, I still stay up to the wee hours of the morn' playing SMAC/X with a handful of friends and only take time to read or rant or rave here when I am on break or lunch at work.

(I do not like the term whiners by the way. A great many people, myself included, have some issues with this game - admittedly some issues are more valid than others.)

In the end, everybody will have different views/opinions about the game. It's IMPOSSIBLE to make everyone happy. Even, when editors are added and MP is added and fighters intercept correctly some players will still be unhappy. YOU should be happy they're venting here and not blowing up the local PC store where you might be shopping.

You don't like the "whiners"? IGNORE THEM! 'Nuff said...

Some of us work and only spend time here during that time..

As far as why you're not spending as much time with Civ3 as you did with SMAC/Civ2, no idea, maybe the same reason I didn't play Civ2 OR SMAC more than 4-5 times and grew bored because it was the same boring "rush tech as far as you can and then win militarily" game as Civ1 had been??

Maybe you only like this type of play and this is why you didn't like Civ3, who knows.

If you don't like specific things then say so, but too many people "complain" about minor issues, like no wonder movies, and the fact their old strategies don't work EXACTLY as they did in Civ2/SMAC. If you complain about no wonder movies or the fact that Civ3 is NOT SMAC/Civ2 with a facelift then you ARE a whiner.

By all means if you have specific things to complain about, not because they are different than what you're used to and like, but because they are drastically broken measures like air superiority, then by all means list them.

Too many people seem to like to complain because the game is not like what they were used to playing and so complain, those folks are indeed "whiners".

[Ozymandous]

Howling Chip:

Exactly!!! You hit the nail on the head. Too bad other people didn't realize this game would be different before they loaded it expecting Civ2 in better clothes!

I wonder if the people really complaining are upset more because their "pet' strategies don't work as well or because they might actually have to change??

Oh, and the people who don't even have the game and are blasting it, , get a life.

Game is not perfect no, but it's much better overall than Civ2 & SMAC.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Exactly!!! You hit the nail on the head. Too bad other people didn't realize this game would be different before they loaded it expecting Civ2 in better clothes!

Let's list the things people did not expect and you can tell me if they are valid issues:

1) I expected MP. This feature was planned on and dropped at the last possible minute. Don't believe me? Check out your Civ3 root directory.

2) I expected a functional scenario editor to be included with my purchase, not the POS they have in there now.

3) I most certainly did not expect corruption to be so crippling. Why should I go into the editor to fix something that should not have been messed up to begin with?

3) I also did not expect that nukes would be so pitiful.

More to come....