Poor concepts in the game

[Capt Dizle]

1. Colonies -these aren't colonies, they have no population, do not grow, control no terrioritory. They are simply resource production centers. Very weak.

2. Borders - AI units ignore with impunity. Pointless implementation. Weak.

3. Corruption - The concept of corruption has been around a long time. In this implementation the level are insanely high. I refuse to believe this game was playtested at all.

4. Culture - Highly amusing. The Palace Rush. This concept is so bad I can't find one good thing to say about it. Someone tell me exactly how this is reflected in world history.

5. Inability to use roads in enemy lands. I could see a movement reduction but really this is crazy.

6. Resource affect on combat- so the reason that an ancient military unit can beat a modern one is to fix the problem with lack of resources. Lame. Did someone get paid to come up with this?

7. Leaders and armies- hard to get in the first place and lame when you do.

8. Eliminate all fun concepts - this is the worst of all, the design team seems to have begun the process by taking out all of the stuff from which fun derived in the earlier versions...

examples?

pop booms, specialist cities, science cities, wonder rushing, spies (worst idea ever to take this out), caravans, unit workshops, events (metor strikes, vulcanos, alien invasions -ok, i liked SMAC), firepower, supply crawlers, sensors, satilites, terraforming, Golden Ages!!!!

Farmland. Where are the great cities? Awful.

9. The shape of the continents are awful. There is nothing to explore. By the time you get the tech the world is all filled up. Silly. Another step backwards.

I stop now.

[Velociryx]

Well....while I don't agree with *all* of your assessment here, I DO find myself agreeing with most of it. I'll go point by point.

Colonies - TOTAL agreement. Colonies suck. They should have borders (even if it's just one tile!) to prevent eventual absorption. Also, they should, over time, expand to full blown cities (or, you could add another colonist to them, and grow it into a city).

Borders - Their primary purpose is to determine who has access to what resources, NOT to keep the AI out, IMO. In this regard, they work splendidly, and it's one of best reasons to focus on culture.

Corruption - I've played games on a normal sized map with as many as 30 cities, some on far flung continents, and found it to be quite tolerable. I think the corruption in the ancient era is dead on, but as a society modernizes, there should be fixes to reduce it....not eliminate it completely, but definitely make it LESS. IMO, they run the risk of going too far the other way and making losses due to corruption a joke. My fingers are crossed that this does not happen.

The Palace Rush/Cultural Assimilation - Again, I agree that the *implementation* is bad, but the effect is quite real and visible in our world today. Even without intending to influence the citizens of Mexico, the opportunities to be had here keep them coming.....this is abstractly represented via relocating your palace (spending resources and time in an effort to woo the citizens of a different culture). Poor execution, to be sure, but with a real word equivalent.

If you have Right of Passage you *can* use their roads!!! If not, the assumption is that you're invading, and the local populace will attempt to impede your progress - again, an abstraction, but also believable, IMO.

Resource effect on combat - Again, I'd say this is more of an abstraction. It's not a broze-wielding spearman vs. your tank, but an ill-equipped (with prolly stolen, outdated guns) soldier (Afghan rebels?) who sometimes gets lucky. Remember here that we're essentially getting a broad surface scan of the world when we take our turns. Each turn, there are thousands, if not millions of people in our "civs" who are doing stuff. Obviously, we can't zoom in and watch each one of them, and a lot of the "stuff they do" (ie - backroom arms deals to outfit "spearmen" with outdated weapons) is simply abstracted.

Leaders/Armies - TOTAL agreement. Either they should be more powerful than they are, or easier to get.

The Fun Concepts:
Man....I agree and disagree here. The fun concepts you mention are also the patently *broken* concepts that made it too easy to abuse the AI. Yep....it was cool to do, but it also made the game vs. the AI kind of a joke, no?

Continental Shaping - I agree that the map generator leaves me kinna ho-hum, but not so bad that I'd formally complain about it. I'd call it average.

As to the world being all filled up....that, to me, is also realistic....I mean, it's true that the American (Plains) indians didn't have permanent cities established when we pale faces came over and started building, but neither was the real estate just vacant. There *were* people here! LOTS of them. And some indian tribes (Aztecs, Inca, etc) DID found cities and expand in more typical European fashion.

So....I don't see it as unrealistic to expect to see *someone* on that other continent yonder laying claim to all "their" land when you hop in your trireme...errr...galley....

-=Vel=-

[jackshot]

I have to say I'm getting disappointed, it ain't broken, just mediocre in places, for many of the reasons jimmytrick said.

I'm sorry, to me Civ3 lacks depth as a game (meaning for me having a veritable soup of choices, rather than de facto linear paths). All the Civs are the same, a limited range of strategies for the human player, plenty of boring stuff to do (workers/pollution).

Workers aren't the fun part, and the combat is weird - I don't mean the tanks/spearmen bit (to the extend that's a problem it can be fixed easily), but the bugginess of aircraft and who-knows-what-they-were-thinking nature of armies (wouldn't we all be happier if armies were just ways to move groups of units around instead of all this bounus/leader stuff?) - without all the combat elements in place I can't tell whether I like it or not, but it's sure a lot of micromanagement. Diplomacy's lacking something special, corruption, culture weirdness - I don't know how it all adds up into long term fun, we wait for a patch to find out.

Wouldn't you just like it better if your borders DID work more like real borders, despite the fact it is definitely playable the way it is?

IMO, it's a step back from SMAC (depth of play) and even a step back from CTP1/2 (modibility). It'll stay on my hd, and I expect Firaxis will be better than Activision at improving what they got. But there is so much that should be better here they will never get around to "fixing" I'm afraid.

And, on the other hand, some they will.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Colonies - TOTAL agreement. Colonies suck. They should have borders (even if it's just one tile!) to prevent eventual absorption. Also, they should, over time, expand to full blown cities (or, you could add another colonist to them, and grow it into a city).

I agree with the 1 tile border for colonies (if you count new cities as having a 2 tile border radius). But i disagree about expanding them into full-blown cities. Why then would you build settlers, when you can just send out hordes of 1 pop workers to stake land claims, and only later on fill them in to become full cities??

One thing i dont like about borders is that a brand new city can still push your borders back, just by plonking down next to your border. It automatically gets all the tiles around it, which goes against the whole "I was here first" style that culture represents.

I just wish armies could attack more than once a turn. Sure, it would make them powerful, but just like nukes - They are supposed to be powerful!!

[Blackadar1]

Here Here! Good post.

How about cities reverting back due to "culture" after you've conquered them? Talk about frustrating...taking over a size 3 city and having 6 tanks inside the city limits and having them all destroyed when the city goes back to it's former Civ. Yea, that's realistic. Grrrrr....

War weariness is another good concept that was poorly implemented.

One of my biggest pet peeves is that it can take forever to switch governments and in the meantime the riots in all the cities are tearing down your hard-earned improvements.

Borders - either they're borders or they're not. If they are, crossing is an act of war. If they're not, then it's just another concept that should have been borrowed from SMAC and wasn't.

Corruption - absurd. I can see it affecting the production, but to have conquered cities for 200 years still producing only 1 shield is just insane.

Leaders - very weak. Why can't you remove units from an army and why can it only attack once per turn? And why the heck should a leader be able to build a wonder in 1 turn?

Resources - again, weak. Who sat around the conference room table and said, "let's arbitrarily decide who wins in a close game by seeing who gets the oil"? Really absurd.

I don't find a problem with the continents and farmland can be replaced by building railroads on every square. Nor do I find a problem with not being able to use roads in enemy territory. But overall, good post.

[Dis]

one man's poor concept, is another man's concept that he thinks is fine

P.S. this thread sucks

my point: I totatally disagree with everything in this thread. bring on the next whiner please

[Dis]

oh and I don't want to insult anyone here. That was not my intention.

my point is that I don't find these concepts poor. And there others that have little problem with these concepts. And many can be fixed with a patch.

I just get the impression that people wanted the game to be designed exactly to their liking. In that case I suggest buying out a game company and forcing them to program what you want.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Blackadar1
War weariness is another good concept that was poorly implemented.

Resources - again, weak. Who sat around the conference room table and said, "let's arbitrarily decide who wins in a close game by seeing who gets the oil"? Really absurd.

So war weariness is poorly implemented how?

As for resources I guess they should have just given everyone one of every thing? I hate to break it to you but resources have made or broken empires through the ages. It works about the same as in real life. A very good implementation. You want oil? Go get it or make a pact with the devil just like real civilizations do. And if you think its absurd you can edit it out unlike real life.

[Zylka]

Bring on the next whiner... ha... ha...

You're such an idiot, Dissident. How's that for not insulting anyone?

P.S.

How's the spiritwalking? OOOOOHHHHMMMM

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Dissident
my point: I totatally disagree with everything in this thread. bring on the next whiner please

Do you actually have an argument to back that up? Please do, in point form. What do you have in response to jimmy's 9 logical topics?

[Monoriu]

"1. Colonies -these aren't colonies, they have no population, do not grow, control no terrioritory. They are simply resource production centers. Very weak. "


I am with you on this one. Colonies are pointless.


"2. Borders - AI units ignore with impunity. Pointless implementation. Weak. "


I disagree. The AI generally respects the border, with the exception of: ships, the need to cross your border to fight somebody else, settlers and escorts, and (obviously) when he fights you. Borders are also needed for determination of who gets what resource. If the AI NEVER goes inside your territory it'll be too, umm, predictable and takes the fun out.

"3. Corruption - The concept of corruption has been around a long time. In this implementation the level are insanely high. I refuse to believe this game was playtested at all. "


I agree 100%. The levels should be toned down a bit and there should be a cap somewhere, 1 shield cities are not acceptable. My greatest complaint is THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH IT. You should be able to build a vast empire, and keep corruption levels down IF AND ONLY IF you have taken sufficient measures to counter corruption, in other words, at a price.


"4. Culture - Highly amusing. The Palace Rush. This concept is so bad I can't find one good thing to say about it. Someone tell me exactly how this is reflected in world history. "

Civ games are not about realism. I like culture, but I do agree that they must fix the "city revolts and every unit in it is gone" thing.


"5. Inability to use roads in enemy lands. I could see a movement reduction but really this is crazy. "


I disagree. Moving on enemy lands should be difficult and this forces you to plan and exeute an attack carefully. You cannot, and should not be able to, conquer a vast civ within a few turns by using THEIR rail system.


6. Resource affect on combat- so the reason that an ancient military unit can beat a modern one is to fix the problem with lack of resources. Lame. Did someone get paid to come up with this?


I disagree. The ancient unit CAN beat a modern one, but it seldom happens if the player who is controlling the modern units know what he is doing.

"7. Leaders and armies- hard to get in the first place and lame when you do. "


I agree with the too hard to get part, but I think they are powerful enough. I don' t want any invincible units in my game.


"8. Eliminate all fun concepts - this is the worst of all, the design team seems to have begun the process by taking out all of the stuff from which fun derived in the earlier versions...

examples?

pop booms, specialist cities, science cities, wonder rushing, spies (worst idea ever to take this out), caravans, unit workshops, events (metor strikes, vulcanos, alien invasions -ok, i liked SMAC), firepower, supply crawlers, sensors, satilites, terraforming, Golden Ages!!!! "


Eliminating wonder rushing is for game balance. Caravans are boring and I hate them. Events I don't care much. Pop booms, again, game balancing. Firepower, same thing as att points. Sensors, useless. Terraforming, game balance, its too easy for the human player.


"Farmland. Where are the great cities? Awful. "


Disagree. Settlers don't need food anymore balances the loss of farmland.



"9. The shape of the continents are awful. There is nothing to explore. By the time you get the tech the world is all filled up. Silly. Another step backwards. "


Previous civs are too easy because the humans can always get more cities than the AI. I am glad that's no longer true.

[Dis]

Zylka, can you read. It is in the next post down.

I said all I need to say.

All you do is insult me. But I suppose that makes your life worthwhile. But it does make me wonder why are you here? Either play the game, or b!tch at Firaxis to fix it, or leave. 3 options there.

[dexters]

I think colonies should be fixed to make them more defensible. But the rest of the complaints are crap!

[Baloo]

Let the guys say what they think about the game. Unless Apolyton's going to clamp down all the whining posts, IMHO it's their prerogatives to express their love for the game.

The anti-whiners are welcomed to stage their opinions in their own threads.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Civ games are not about realism.

Um, maybe for you. Some of us expected to have a chance to re-write history.

-"using THEIR rail system."
He said road. I agree that rails should not be available (unless between cities perhaps).

-"The ancient unit CAN beat a modern one"
Except that they do not actually exist at the same time (in reality).

[Monoriu]

"Um, maybe for you. Some of us expected to have a chance to re-write history. "


If I want realism, I go for Europa Universalis, Steel Panther etc. If you accept that it takes 3 centuries to build a band of warriors, that Egypt has granaries in every city because they built the pyramids, that it takes 20 years to move the distance between San Francisco and LA, then why do you have trouble with the other things in the game? When realism and fun clashes, fun should take precedence.


-"using THEIR rail system."
He said road. I agree that rails should not be available (unless between cities perhaps).


You know what I mean. I should have said raid/road system but you are just picking on words.


-"The ancient unit CAN beat a modern one"
Except that they do not actually exist at the same time (in reality).


See above.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Monoriu
why do you have trouble with the other things in the game? When realism and fun clashes, fun should take precedence.

Lack of realism is lack of fun for some of us. Yes there are other examples, some of which are easier to take than others. How is that relevant?


-"you are just picking on words."
The two are very different, and I agreed with you to a certain extent.

[Capt Dizle]

I am not judging the game on the basis of just playing versus the AI. I agree that Firaxis has done a good job of making it harder to beat the AI (at least by military means).

I am looking ahead to multiplayer (PBEM for me).

There was nothing wrong with pop booms in a human game. All those types of things are fine with real people playing and it was fun to be able to do. Like trying to build a solar park in SMAC and someone comes in and tears it up! Argh!

Now, what are multiplayer games going to be like? I am having horror visions.

What will I do when all three of my neighbors decide to relocate their palace next to my border? Get the Hollywood crowd to put on a "we are the world" style benefit to up my culture? Build opera centers? Invest in renaisance era paintings? Pipe Beethoven into my den.

Maybe I can just hire Hannibal the Cannibal as the curator of my Great Library? Sniff, sniff, hello Clarice!

[cassembler]

1. Colonies -these aren't colonies, they have no population, do not grow, control no terrioritory. They are simply resource production centers. Very weak.

Agree. The idea is kinda nice, maybe colony attributes will be able to be edited...

2. Borders - AI units ignore with impunity. Pointless implementation. Weak.

Somewhat disagree. If they trespass, that's valid diplomatic reasons for war.

3. Corruption - The concept of corruption has been around a long time. In this implementation the level are insanely high. I refuse to believe this game was playtested at all.

Somewhat agree, though I play commercial civs so it's not really that much of a problem...

4. Culture - Highly amusing. The Palace Rush. This concept is so bad I can't find one good thing to say about it. Someone tell me exactly how this is reflected in world history.

Completely disagree. Yes, it's exploitable, but the concept is nice. There are hundreds of examples... a history book is a good start.

5. Inability to use roads in enemy lands. I could see a movement reduction but really this is crazy.

Somewhat disagree... perhaps not roads, but definitely with rails (A tank hijacking a caboose? come on.)

6. Resource affect on combat- so the reason that an ancient military unit can beat a modern one is to fix the problem with lack of resources. Lame. Did someone get paid to come up with this?

I don't see what you're sayin' here so I can't comment. I will say that resources are a nice idea, though implementation could be better. It will be when scenarios get created.

7. Leaders and armies- hard to get in the first place and lame when you do.

Completely disagree. Rush build wonders? Not realistic, but definitely not lame.

8. Eliminate all fun concepts - this is the worst of all, the design team seems to have begun the process by taking out all of the stuff from which fun derived in the earlier versions...

This argument is an obnoxiously personal stab at good people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing:
Civ3 has bugs, we ALL know that. Civ3 has design flaws, we ALL know that.

Civ3 was created by normal working people with budgets and deadlines to meet.

Civ3 has TREMENDOUS potential... PLEASE take a look at how much of the game is a shell that WILL be poked, prodded, and manipulated to implement just about every feature most of us see missing now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Capt Dizle]

I got a D in world history so maybe I am wrong. I have been before. I don't think the Spanish conquered the Incas due to their culture though.

My view of world history is that there was one constant...war. Cold steel. Not pomp and circumstance.

What is culture anyway? "I wanna be like Mike"?

Someone help me out on this, give me an example. I am willing to look at this with an open mind.

[Dis]

culture is in reference to modern day U.S.

look at our immigration.

poorly implemented though. as has been said before, the enemy should lose population, and that should shift to your cities. gaining territory is not the best way to implement this!

[Felch]

I agree there are problems, but I'd say they are largely limited to the following:

• The lack of a decent editor. There is no macro language, no ability to create scenarios, and graphics have been made in a format that is virtually impossible to edit. Thus, we're stuck playing vanilla Civ III when we've been spending the past few years enjoying all sorts of scenarios and mod packs for Civ II.
  
• The hyper hostility of the AI. Several of my games have been ruined because I've been essentially gang-banged by seven or eight AI civs at once. It's not realistic or fun, and there should be an adjustment to the diplomacy model. Even peaceful civilizations get involved in these rampages. World wars should be between opposing coalitions of multiple civs, unless there is some reason for every civ to hate me.
  
• The AI's super-production skill. Somehow they can have the same number of cities as me, with the same level of overall development, and still have dozens of every different unit. I know this is the reason for the computer attacking me en masse, but it just seems to get to be rediculous. I'm not a bad player, I could win Civ II on deity on a regular basis, it just seems that the computer uses its micromanagement capabilities to overwhelm me. And of course, the governors they have in the game don't have nearly the same effect for the human civ.
  
• The diplomatic victory. It happens too quickly and too abruptly. It should have been implemented in a way closer to SMAC, with points and an overwhelming majority needed to win. It's not that I've ever lost to the computer because of this, it's that it doesn't seem like a very satisfactory victory.

[Ancientfool]

Have to agree with many of the points here...Especially regarding the diplomatic victory. Planetary council in SMAC was just awesome compared to this boring version of the UN. Also, there were so many cool options for terrain alteration in SMAC let alone the diverse technology. CivIII graphics are better of course but all in all a step back to appeal to the casual gaming market, to which Ill admit I dont belong.

Also have to admit that ive already taken the game off my HD and dont feel the need to put it back at the moment. IMO, SMAC was a much richer *game*. I wont take it back though, just check back when the good patches/mods are released.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Dissident
culture is in reference to modern day U.S.

look at our immigration.

poorly implemented though. as has been said before, the enemy should lose population, and that should shift to your cities. gaining territory is not the best way to implement this!

Yes, the lost of population seems a better concept (my standard disclaimer: I haven't played the game, yet; I'm waiting for a good patch to give me a "final game").

This way you could also have a warning pop-up that your city is losing people to the admired culture. Maybe a City that lost the last citizen to another Civ should change owner as in today rule.

Loosing every military units during city revolting back it's another oversimplified point, IMHO.

OTOH culture dominance game coding should be changed quite enough, so I don't hold my breath for a change into next patch

[Jokka das Trevas]

(dupped msg )

[Jokka das Trevas]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I got a D in world history so maybe I am wrong. I have been before. I don't think the Spanish conquered the Incas due to their culture though.

My view of world history is that there was one constant...war. Cold steel. Not pomp and circumstance.

What is culture anyway? "I wanna be like Mike"?

Someone help me out on this, give me an example. I am willing to look at this with an open mind.

I'm not an expert on USA's geography so I can't give you the State name, but you know the one USA's state that is right above Mexico?

It was Mexico's land once.
Ok, USA's people moved to there too, but you can't say the area was unhabitated. In truth, I dunno if this territory was bought later by the U.S from Mexico as they bought Alaska.

But a real example are many europeans countries. Before they changed to the countries we have today, dominant cultures assimilated lesser ones to form contries.


Oh, and sorry to whoever said that, but culture has nothing to do with immigration in real life. People immigrate to USA looking for better conditions of life and work, and not culture. No illegal immigrant wants to enter USA because he wants to visit a library, a temple or a cathedral, or even watch cable TV.

So please don't comment on what you don't know, ok? An old saying tells that "any fool will be mistook for a sage if he kepts his mouth shut".