Broken Beyond Repair....:(

[Velociryx]

***Please note this is NOT a troll....it is my hope that when folks read this thread, they'll take a step back and realize that the level of viciousness found in many of the "battle threads" has kinna gotten out of hand.***

It's one thing to debat the merits of a game, it's another thing to make it personal, and it is my belief that the folks who don't like the new way of doing things in Civ3, are the ones who miss their Civ2 Strats the most. So...I thought a little tongue in cheek humor might help put things back into perspective.

-=Vel=-

***


Why Civ3 is Broken
Combat is totally unrealistic! In Civ2, I used to be able to take four tanks and conquer the whole world! Now, you actually have to slog through tough, entrenched AI units who hide in the mountains, and who may be technologically inferior, but still sometimes pull out some mojo and kill a unit or two!

Conquering cities is totally unrealistic too! In Civ2, I used to be able to roll in with my aforementioned four tanks and all the citizens would instantly love me! Now, they don’t! And worse, I actually have to garrison troops IN the newly conquered cities in order to quell resistors?! You’ve GOT to be kidding! Don’t these people know that I’m conquering them in order to bring them out of the dark ages and into ultimate enlightenment and happiness!? They should LOVE me! In fact, I think that when I easily defeat the hopeless AI (and please fix this wretched condition….I want it to be EASY to beat up on the AI, ‘k?)….anyway, when I slice through the AI’s pitiful resistance like a Ginsu through butter, I think I should get a WLTK celebration in each town rather than all this resistance and corruption nonsense! It’s CLEARLY broken the way it is right now!!!! Anyone who can’t see that is obviously either blind, stoopid, or the son of a Godless DOG!

Resources SUCK! In some games, I might not have at least six of each and every resource, which would enable to me simply run roughshod over all of my opposition! What gives with that! I don’t actually want a CHALLENGE….I just wanna….you know, get to tanks, build four, and conquer everybody! It’s TOTALLY unrealistic to expect that, as the HUMAN PLAYER….the person who is PAYING GOOD MONEY for this damned game, I might start off lacking the basic resources I need to build my four tanks and conquer the world! Trade with the AI!? Bah! If I’m trading with them, how do you expect me to conquer them!

Culture!? You HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!? That’s just for wussies who don’t want to build four tanks and conquer the AI! What a stupid, useless idea!? Probably that was something you guys came up with while half drunk on tequila and eating nachos or something. It shows. And even worse....when an AI civ has been dutifully investing in all the cultural enhancements I ignore so I can stomp everybody....sometimes, when I take a city, the AI gets it back! TOTALLY UNFAIR!!!!

And what’s all this about having to honor my mutual protection alliances!? Bah! That’s ALSO totally unrealistic! In Civ2, the AI was really stupid (much more realistic, since everybody knows that politicians are all stupid!), and you could backstab them over and over again and they’d NEVER be any wiser for it! That’s what I want! I want to be able to lull the AI into a clever diplomatic trap and then backstab them! I don’t want to actually have to KEEP a commitment! That’s too much like real life….oh wait….I keep saying that I WANT the game to be more like real life.

Yes….and real life can sometimes be a pain in the a$$…so THAT’s what I’m looking for in a game! Errr…no…that’s not right….I…no wait! I’m not finished yet! I want….I want….Civ2 with better graphics! Yes…in the end….that’s what I’m looking for.


***

Seriously, there clearly ARE some things in the game that need to be addressed, such as bombers that can’t be stopped, coastal fortresses that you pay for but don’t do anything, MAYBE adding a corruption fighting effect to police stations to stop people from crying foul there, and definitely re-checking the corruption levels re: tiny maps.

Then, there are a few quirky things, like the millionaire bug and the queue production bug which seems to allow you to keep building stuff like tanks, even after your 20-turns of trading for oil expire (ie – even after you lose your source of oil).

Yep…it’s NOT a perfect game, but I genuinely believe that the people who keep saying to us all that corruption and the combat system are broken are the same crowd that can no longer run around with half a dozen tanks abusing the AI….

IMO, That’s what Civ2’s for….

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

oops! Forgot one!

[/tongue in cheek mode on]
Corruption!? Give me a break! I am an ***ENLIGHTENED*** despot! There IS no corruption in my government. That's why everyone should love me when I steamroll over their pathetic resistance and conquer them! I don't want to have to THINK about the game....take into account stuff like corruption and losing shields and gold just because my 342nd base is halfway around the globe from my palace!!!!

[/ticm off]



-=Vel=-

[Steve Clark]

Wonderful work. Providing perspective is always valuable among the noise here.

[Wrong_shui]

Your right!

And here i was thinking the combat system was odd!

My old civ2 strat was to research so i could build advanced units like tanks to kill there inferior units like knights.

But now all units are about as successful as each other so my new strat is just build a horde knights as its quantity and not quality.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....okay....let's put that theory to the ultimate test, shall we?

If what you're saying is true, Wrong, then you should be able to fire up a game right now, LET THE AI get to tanks (trading techs to get them there), build some knights (and remember now...don't build anything but knights, 'k?), and win.

Let's see some screenies of that....that'd be cool.

Let's also hear about how you trade blows 1:1 with those knights vs the AI's tanks. Remember, the argument is exactly as you have stated, so you should be able to build twenty or so knights and EASILY take on say...ten tanks. Should be no sweat at all if the combat system is broken.

-=Vel=-
PS: Thanks Steve....

[zapperio]

Maybe Soren has some input about this...let's see, here it is:

gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

Clear enough?

Zap

[Arrian]

I agree w/Vel.

Clearly, there are some bugs that need fixing, and perhaps some other things that may need tweaking (corruption). But, in order for the game to be "broken," which I think is a silly term anyway, it has to have flaws that make it unplayable. As different people define "unplayable" differently, we can argue with each other until we're all blue in the face (or, on this forum, have really, really sore fingers) and get nowhere. Personally, I love the addition of culture, I think corruption is entirely realistic early on, and just needs to be reduced later in the game.

On combat: Yes, occasionally I have experience brief flashes of rage resulting from a fairly crazy combat result. Two examples:

1) Veteran Battleship attacks caravel... Battleship wins w/1 hit point left. 2) Longbowman attacks tank (tank is on forest, not fortified, is veteran at full strength) and forces the tank to retreat (down to 1hp) w/o any loss of health. The tank was easily killed by another AI unit b/c it retreated into a grassland square (that part, a 1hp unit on grassland, is fine).

Overall, however, the combat mostly goes the way it should. I sometimes get frustrated when my Tanks get beat up attacking spearmen, but it's not like they die - I just have to pull them back and heal them up - think of it as maintainence. Destroyers do get killed by Frigates with distressing regularity.

The combat system isn't perfect... but this isn't a war game, is it? If you want a "perfect" combat model in a Civ game, you will most likely always be disappointed. Destroyers that take 20+ yrs. to circumnavigate the globe? People miss the CIV II firepower... and I think I do too, but I'm not sure. The fact is, at Regent level and up, the AI will pretty much keep pace in Tech, so you won't be fighting armies of spearmen w/tanks all that often anyway - and the AI is smarter now (again, not perfect, but certainly better).

If you're fighting spearmen w/tanks every game, you are probably the type of player that doesn't really want a challenge. I don't say that to insult anyone - sometimes I just want to play a fairly easy game where I totally dominate (I nearly always played at Diety in CIV II, but once in a blue moon, I'd go back to Prince and... oh my, it was silly). For someone who is looking to play that way, the combat system in CIV III will consistently drive you crazy. Me, I accept, learn how to best deal w/it and move on, 'cause the game is just do damn fun!

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Another interesting point to consider....

There are a subset of people out there who keep screaming about more realism in the game.

Let's think about that.

4000 BC....Hmmm....we've got some old farts here at the office, but I somehow *doubt* they can provide us much insight on what things might have been like in 4000 BC....'fraid there's little opportunity for realism on the opener then...gonna have to suspend disbelief a bit.

Another point. I have no idea what life expectancy was in 4000BC, but my guess is that it wasn't high. Living to 30 would prolly make you an old man. Now, given that each of the opening turns lasts 100 years each, that means it takes you 400 years to "build" (train?) a Cave Warrior! He's freakin' DEAD and buried before you even finish training him!

Okay....so much for realism.

And, as you mention, in the modern era, we've got destroyers that circumnavigate the globe in a decade or so, while bombers can do it instantly (select new base).

Realism? I thought the whole POINT of gaming (speaking both as an avid player and a designer) was escapism. If I want realism, I'll just look up from my computer.

Besides that, does anyone ACTUALLY believe that you can implant a serious sense of realism in a game that spans 6000 years of history!? Especially when the bulk of that history is both unknown and unknowable?!

Sure, it's possible (at least after civs discovered writing), if you set the playspeed at 1 day = 1 day, but at that point....I think it'd be a bit tough to actually FINISH a game.

Anyway....sure there are flaws. I'd be interested to hear from ANYBODY who knew of a game that didn't have it's share of detractors.

C'mon...send me a link. I'd love to see the forum of the game that was universally praised.

But I won't hold my breath.



-=Vel=-

[Robert Plomp]

Velociryx,

posts like yours are so true, (well, the thought behind it is )
but unfortunately much people read it and keep on claiming how right they are about their infallable tanks and happy citizen that produce 100% in the other edge of the empire.................

it's sad but true
they're not the real civers, that's a fact.
start calling names. And yes, I feel my opinion is superior to someone's opinion that claims that this game is broken.

Great post !
Civers unite against the barbarian ! (read: FPS-ers)

CyberShy

[Garth Vader]

Good posts Vel. I have noticed a few combat problems, but not many. I was able to fight well with Swordsmen against Spearmen. Cossacks and Knights against Musketmen and Pikemen. Tanks agaisnt Riflemen. Modern armor against Infantry.

But in all cases I needed many more units that I was used to from SMAC and Civ2. If I encountered a strongpoint, I would isolate and bombard just as you would really have to do.

I don't have a problem needing to leave a garrison in a captured city, but to lose 5 tanks when a size 6 city reverts is just nuts. But that's manageable because it's easy to raze and rebuild if you want. I would like to see cultural reversion addressed.

Corruption is easy to mod. I made later buildings like police station and airport help corruption. That way corruption will suck in the early game like it should, but that when technology has progressed enough corruption can be brought under control at a cost.

The game is NOT broken, just a little unpolished.

[Tre976]

read the damn manual for the answers to my questions or complaints before i post a thread on how so and so sucks because i said so..
ha! i played civ2 i shouldnt have to!

[Wrong_shui]

If i want to escape reality ill get drunk.

If i want to have fun ill watch my tanks roll over inferior races in civ2 and use my civ3 cd as a coaster for my pint.

Joking aside civ3 is a good (read good not great) game and i suggest you buy it so they can listen to all you ppl here and implement your ideas in civ4.

So anyway, roll on civ4!

[zapperio]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Civers unite against the barbarian ! (read: FPS-ers)

CyberShy

Hey! My other favorite game is HL, so I resent that. Also I love MP SC now and then. And I'm sweating, defending my current favorite game, Civ3.

Take it back or meet me in 'Zapperios eternal canyon' on the RF free server and we'll duke it out!

Zap

[DinoDoc]

You forgot one point Vel and I'd like to see it addressed in this 'love' thread.

Editors: I don't know about other people but one of the reasons I bought the game was the expectation that it would come with a useful editor that was capable of creating scenarios. This was further confirmed by the advertising on the box. Would anyone like to ask the scenario community in general what they think of the editor? Where is the advertised feathure that I paid for? Do I have a valid complaint?

[player3]

Vel,
Finally, someone with some common sense! God forbid Firaxis would release a game that's actually CHALLENGING and requires THOUGHT to win. My feeling is that the people complaining about how 'unfair' the combat system fit the stereotype you pointed out in your initial post. They're used to beating Civ2 deity with a couple of tanks, but now they're getting their butts kicked on Civ3 Warlord because the new rules and AI actually requires them to THINK.

Still, their arguments aren't completely unfounded. There are still a few issues to be resolved as you pointed out. And I still get frustrated on the RARE occasion when my elite panzer loses to a regular spearman (Rommel would roll in his grave) But it's not nearly as severe as they say. You WILL have instances where a superior unit will lose to an inferior one, but the MAJORITY of battles always go to the superior unit. Period.

[Velociryx]

Hey all...on my way out to lunch....and thank you all for the positive comments here! I think that sometimes, in the heat of all the arguing back and forth, people tend to forget that it really is just a game....no matter how awesome and addictive....

Dino....your complaint about the editor is indeed a valid one....as are the other complaints I mentioned in the first post (and prolly a handful more that I forgot about/don't know about yet). It's comments and complaints like that....about things that are indeed hobbled or missing from the game that will make it better! But....having said that, it seems clear to me from reading the majority of posts in the general section (especially in the "battle-threads") that the bulk of players with gripes that go beyond the points previously mentioned are more stung by the fact that they can't just mindlessly conquer the AI anymore....that they actually have to work for the victory.

Personally, I kinna thought that was the point of a worthwhile gaming experience, but...::shrug:: That's just me.

-=Vel=-
PS to Player3 - Ohhhh, an' you guys are *really* in trouble if I'm the voice of logic and reason! Everybody knows we artist-types are freaks....

-V.

[sachmo71]

When a group of spearmen kill one of your tanks, maybe it will help you deal with it if you imagine that the spearmen have LASER SPEARS...ohhhhhh

OR, Spears...with a side of anti-tank rockets.

OR, Nuclear tipped spears.

Pick one of the above, or make up your own, but remember to HAVE FUN

[monkspider]

I agree with your sentiments completely! Good show Vel.

[Chowlett]

Vel - you seriously had me worried with that thread title there! The game is released here tomorrow (although I won't open it until saturday, my birthday. See associated thread "A test of willpower", by now somewhere on page 5 probably), and I really value your opinion.

Good to see it's just Vel being humourous and sensible at the same time. Business as usual.

BTW - you may be an artist type, but weren't you an economist first? Anyway - you're one of the most logical artist type people I know of, and you're pretty good for people in general!

[Zakalwe]

Originally posted by sachmo71
When a group of spearmen kill one of your tanks, maybe it will help you deal with it if you imagine that the spearmen have LASER SPEARS...ohhhhhh

OR, Spears...with a side of anti-tank rockets.

Well, an anti-tank javelin was actually considered by Finns during World War II...

And of course the Japanese did have shaped charges attached to long bamboo poles. The idea was to stab the tank with the pole and the charge would go off. Not very friendly for the user.

Z

[TCO]

Vel,

Great peice. You should also add that some (not all) of these guys are complaining cause Civ2 WAS a challenge for them. Many of these guys actually don't understand how Civ2 itself worked, especially in combat.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

I am just about two shakes from being insulted by your attitude here. You are flirting with sterotyping. This is a bad thing.

Given your preferred style of play there is no surprise that you like some of the concepts in Civ3.

I personally see the game as huge step backwards from where we were with SMAC. I could, and in time will, post about 100 things we have lost from Civ2/SMAC in this current Civ version.

The result is a game that is boring if played the way its designed to be played (peaceful, cultural expansion) and frustrating if played in the manner that the designer intended to thwart (warlike, military expansion).

Some pleasure might be gained in a hybrid approach, but (here I go again) there are tons and tons and tons of features not present in the game. It's like nursery school, make nice with everyone, sandbox sim-civ. It's lame Vel, its lame.

And you know me and you know I am not the type that is interested in steamrolling the AI on easy levels. I am having a real hard time seeing any sort of multiplayer game in Civ3 at all. There is such limited unit interaction.

Where is the game Vel. Is it no more than build settler, garrison, temple, library, rinse repeat. Thats just no fun Vel.

I predict that once people play a few games there will be a general loss of interest in Civ3.

[Capt Dizle]

I think the idea of relocating your palace nearer your opponent's border to culturally assimilate them is the lamest game concept I have ever heard of.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by sachmo71
When a group of spearmen kill one of your tanks, maybe it will help you deal with it if you imagine that the spearmen have LASER SPEARS...ohhhhhh

OR, Spears...with a side of anti-tank rockets.

OR, Nuclear tipped spears.

Pick one of the above, or make up your own, but remember to HAVE FUN

Nah, due to the fact that you can't really stop the black market the other civs have managed to get ahold of small quantities of weapons. They haven't been able to pull them apart to study (since they need them against your tanks) but they have some. It's not the same as having the equivalent units (they'd need the appropriate civ advance) but it is enough to give their weaker forces a chance.

...or maybe I should just rip off the excu-er, explanations given in SMAC as to why you couldn't build airplanes yet.

[Raleigh]

I love Civ 3, I think it's great although it still needs improvement in certain key areas, like courthouses that actually fight corruption.

However, the combat is somewhat annoying. Believe it or not, one of the larger fixes I was looking for from Civ2 was the inability of a phalanx to ever defeat a tank or worse a battleship.

The designers, for their conception of game balance, regressed on this issue. I don't think their solution solves what they argue it does. They claim decreasing the power of advanced units gives players a chance that fall behind. However, if you are building musketeers vs. tanks you will still lose. Therefore, all their solution does is make incongruous battle results that occasionally pop up and disrupt the flavor and pace of the game.

IMHO, people want stability more - that is, yes, they want excitement when a muskateer, fortified in the mountains may or may not repulse a valiant calvry charge, but they don't want the horror that a destroyer might be sunk by caravel. That is just plain stupid, period.

[Velociryx]

Back from lunch! And again, thank you for all the kind words here!

Chowlett....::blushin':: What can I say man....than you! That's high praise indeed! Not to worry, I LOVE this game! Money well spent, IMO.

JT: My apologies bud...I definitely don't mean to come across as stereotyping people....just pointing out a general trend I'm seeing here on the boards that goes beyond clamoring about bugs. Hey...in truth, if it's a bug, I'm all for *****ing about it! That's what'll get it fixed....but clearly, in just a casual look through the threads, there's a lot more going on than that.

And, the comment certainly wasn't meant to be applied to everyone. "They" know who they are, I suspect, and I've never been one to get into the whole name calling bit.

I've played a number of partial games out so I could focus on different eras and see what it's like, and I've found that you CAN be a world conquerer!! In fact, it's an exquisite balancing act between conquering the world, keeping the peace at home, and expanding culturally. And, it's a mix of all three (hybrid, if you will) that seems to stand the test of time the best, in the sense that there are clearly times when rapid, ruthless expansion (preferably under Despotism/Communism, and to a lesser extent, Monarchy), and other times when you'll find it easier/better to relentlessly beat another empire down via your "cultural superiority." Most challenging of all of course, it to battle on multiple fronts simultaneously....sending your military units off to fight a conventional war, while absorbing another culture into your own.

It's true...if all you do is build cities and perfect them, you're right...that's pretty dull. But at that point, it's dull because you're not taking full advantage of all the options available.

Having just finished a game in which I ran over two civs, and could have gone on to conquer them all (without ever leaving the productive blessings of Dem, I might add), I can tell you that the conquest game is alive and well in Civ3....but it takes more work and setup time than in Civ2. IMO, that's a good thing....

-=Vel=-

[Leonidas]

Vel, I have a lot of respect for you, for the tremendous efforts you put into SMAC - especially the strategy guide you wrote - and I understand it was published. Congratulations.

Are you also planning to write a strategy guide for Civ3? Are you hoping it will be published?


I have played countless hours on Civ3. I am no expert. But I have played all the Civ games.

1) The combat - while generally OK - works on the principle of hit point-for-hit point. To say that a tank's hit point is equal to a knight's hit point - is just crazy.

The fact is, the combat system was "dummed" down to avoid a lop-sided game.

Too bad the game AI wasn't improved to give the player a "better", more strategic game. Don't get me wrong, the AI is VERY aggressive (of the kind you'll find in RTS games like Red Alert). But aggressive, doesn't equal SMART. It can be down right stupid - like attacking a well-fortified place of mine with the same units in the same way, turn-after-turn. . .

The AI will also send a settler into the middle of nowhere, and be totally cut off, and be easily captured. . .

2) Culture - a city reverting back to its former Civ is fine - but what is totally unbalanced is the fact that city takes all of your military units with it. It's bad enough, when in enemy territory that all your units are unable to use the enemy roads properly, but to lose all military units in a city, and without warning - tells me that this game was not playtested properly. It only adds to hamper the player, without adding anything fun or "strategic". This element of frustration means that you will never know when the AI will arbitrarily decide, on a roll of the dice, to scuttle your military drive, if you happen to be winning. . .

3) Contrary to what some people have been led to believe, the AI cheats at every level of the game. I have played a number of games on the first three levels (where the AI, supposedly, doesn't cheat), and have encountered it many, many times.

Just four examples:

A) Playing on Chieftan (yeah, I know), I was bombarding a city. I destroyed a road, yet, on the next turn, it was built again. Has anyone ever had a single worker build a road in just one turn? But worse than that - on the very next turn - the AI had built a railroad - again - with only the same worker. I destroy those buggers on each turn - but they are re-built on the very next turn.

B) On Regent level, I had a settler and archer trapped - they were the last units left of a Civ. After I had declared war on that civ, and after I left the diplomacy screen, that settler and archer jumped into the air and landed 10 tiles away. I kid you not. When faced with extinction, the AI can pull off some dramatic events. . . (

Or, I could use my imagination and believe that in 1600 AD, that settler and archer had invented a springboard and parachute, and then with superhuman skill miracluously escaped

C) On Regent level, the AI almost always seems to "know" when its cities will fall to another culture. How do I know? Just before it reverts, you will see that city dwindle to maybe a 2 or 1 pop city before you take it over. However, the human player is given no such warning. . .

D) The AI also always knows where you are the weakest, and what units you have in your cities.

4) The game is filled with bugs. While most of the core game is good and playable, it was still rushed out the door, and it shows:

* Broken scenario/map editors. Even the user made maps available for download tend to screw up the tech tree. Sloppy programming? But let's pretend they work.

* No multiplayer - but I'll use my imagination and pretend it exists

* Air superiority and coastal fortess don't work as advertised. I have yet to get the regular fortress to work the way it should, although the AI has no such handicap.

* The game, rather then intelligently allowing you to select unfortified units that are logically near to each other, instead, jumps all over the screen, from unit to unit, in a crazy jumping match. This can be frustrating, when you're trying to put together an attack.

* When you are beginning your turn, the screen does not stop to allow you to deal with rioting, etc, forcing you to scan the entire map looking for cities in disorder, etc.

* The governors are dummer than door knobs - they always switch production, no matter what I do, and they always build units that are weaker than what I need. . . Again, you have to check on each and every city by scanning the map, and this becomes a real bore and a chore, after a while. . .

* If you're on an island, and are behind in the tech race, AND do not have any resources - you're had it. This adds NOTHING to fun. Make it a challenge yes, but don't leave me so hamstrung with no chance to fight back. Apparently, MY knights do not stop the AI's tanks. So this appears to be slanted in the AI favour.

* With all due respect to all the options for victory, because of the small, selectively placed resources (the AI never seems to have this problem), you almost always have to build an army and take out a neighbouring Civ to get that resource. Welcome to warmonger heaven. In Civ2, at least I could live peacefully.

* Even the diplomacy, while initially interesting, can be maddingly linear - the AI ganging up on you, making demands, unwilling to trade much-needed resources, etc. Plus it has numerous bugs that have already been noted in this forum.

* I could go on and on like having no wonder movies (yes, I really like to see a great little movie after spending years to build a wonder. There's something special about seeing them).

Almost all of the issues have to do with playtesting and play-balance. Since so little of it was done, then we don't know what should or should not work properly in this game. An open beta test would have corrected many, many of these issues.


With all the above said, there is much in this game that I like - I really do. The units, the sound effects and their animations are terrific - like the Samurai, the bombers, etc. The core game is great, despite the very obvious problems and bugs.

But you can clearly see the rushed nature in many areas of the game.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Given your preferred style of play there is no surprise that you like some of the concepts in Civ3.

That's what it comes down to, imo. Civ3 can't be all things to all people (even civers, as in the example that I hate SMAC but love Civ2). If you cannot or will not adapt your play style or strategies (or too stupid to use the editor), then find some other games where their play style matches yours. However, I believe the editor, even in its incomplete stage, can alter the game enough to one's preferred style of play but some just don't want to believe that.

I know it's difficult to accept that perhaps Civ3 is not right for you and others. Just like it took me 4 long weeks to accept that EU was not right for me. That was no big deal, I just moved on to something else. So that's the point: either 1) adapt/change, 2) use the editor or 3) move on.

[Velociryx]

I agree with you, JT, that relocating your palace closer to the front to absorb rival cities isn't very realistic.... No other way to put it...you're right....it's lame.

But it's equally lame in Civ2 to overrun the world with a single rogue squadron of tanks, would you not agree?

Sure, there ARE things that aren't the way I'd like them to be. I'd like the implementation of culture much better if, instead of capturing enemy cities outright, you could continually "drain" pop points from border towns (and further in, depending on the power of your culture vs. the rivals). These points would be "free growth" in any town that could bear the added population....to me, that would rock...MUCH better than simply taking over a city.

But are there not a gazillion similar game mechanics things that human players can do in Civ2 and SMAC that net you a gain you ought not otherwise have (build queue bug comes to mind here, and a whole host of others)?

As to sometimes bizzare combat results: I think that Sinapus hit the nail on the head here....the unit in question is not "really" a spearman at all....that would be silly in the modern age...but he is a scrappy rebel who maybe got ahold of a stinger missile or two.

They don't win all the time...hell...they don't even win often! But now and then, one of those scrappy underdogs actually does pull a victory out of his a$$....happens in real life....ask the Russians in Afghanistan....or the Americans in Vietnam, for that matter, who got their butts handed to them a time or two DESPITE having all their high tech toys and fighting essentially a peasant army.

Again, my thinking is that, since the game is an abstraction....since 5-100 years pass every time you press that space bar, there's clearly a LOT going on that's simply being glossed over. There's backroom arms deals that technologically disadvantaged civs are making that ENABLE their crap units to win sometimes.

Same with a frigate vs. a destroyer.

There was no way that little boat that pulled up alongside of the USS Cole could have won in an open gun battle, but take a look at the size of the hole it made!

Or...no?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Good points all around! LOL...and the replies are coming in as fast as I can respond to them too....makes the (otherwise slow) day at work positively fly by!

Leonidas, thank you! And yes...I'd very much like to do a strat. guide for Civ3, if the interest in it is there. Early indications seem to be that the interest IS there, so that's a good thing!

I think your post quite succintly sums up the majority of what's wrong with the game, and with the exception of the combat system (as I've said in other threads, out of all the wars--both short and long-term--I've had with AI Civs, I've *maybe* seen ten really mismatched results. Hell...you find more than that in our own history! But yes, I TOTALLY agree with the bulk of your list, and it is my *fervent* hope that those things are fixed in the upcoming patch--tho in truth, now that I"m used to playing with corruption as it is, if they make it easier, the game will seem....well...too easy...lol

-=Vel=-