Patch Update

[bahoo]

I think everyone is happy with the way cultural works, aside from one thing, the deposing of cities.

I believe in an interview a firaxian was asked about troops staying during a depose and replied, "what else would they do?"

I can tell you, they would either see the inevitable and retreat, or would wager that they could stand up to the revolutionaries and stay and fight.

I realize with a lot of troops the deposing chances are lower (although it still seems a bit odd, I don't even keep troops in cities I capture anymore, after one bad experience of losing 12 or so tanks to a depose), but we should get options:

The advisor should come up and say the citizens of such and such city are nearing a revolt, should we:

1. Retreat from the city.

or

2. Bloodily put down the revolt.

In civ2 partisans always appeared. Similarly, a the number of citizens that wanted to revolt could turn into partisans and get free attacks on your troops (with your troops receiving no city defense bonuses) and if they win they get the city, if they lose, you keep it.

Reasonable consequences could be set down such as it provoking war with the nation they were defecting to...and any citizens of your nation that share a nationality with the revolters could be come unhappy for a period of time.

I know there were a number of times I would've let some of the deposing cities go for fear of provoking my neighbors or upsetting my populace....but at times of war when on an offensive, I'd be damned if I'd let a recently captured interior city depose to my opponent with out a bloody fight, and risk losing valuable supply lines.

The way war works now, it's either raze everything...or take city, buy temple, buy cathedral, buy library, buy university, etc. and then hope they don't defect....

During WWII did Hitler slap a bunch of churches up to make the people happy? NO, he just knew the citizens of the occupied city wouldn't be about to revolt with a bunch of troops there.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell us something is gonna be done about this in the patch, in the current state it ruins the game.

Everything is stacked against war, the corruption, the loss of cities to culture...it's way easier to win by sitting around and developing science and building a spaceship without ever firing a shot.

[Daniel Frappier]

Agre 100% with you bahoo

You're solutions are excellent and would make it much better

[MadWombat]

They DID say it was out this week right? *hasn't seen anything*

[taco]

"available some time next week"

NEXT week

Large for the apparent blind people in this thread.

[MadWombat]

Oops. =]

[Shadowstrike]

Can somebody from Firaxis give a rough outline of what is expected to be fixed with this patch?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by James7654
I wish to thank Firaxis for finally convincing me to NEVER buy a game before it is patched, no matter how enthusiastic I am about it beforehand.

Well, some of us tryed to warn the community of the expected trouble... Yin26, Jeje2, myself, just to name a few, spended many efforts and time posting about bad signs.

Too bad many call us with bad names...
Now I see there are people really happy with the game AS IS, and I don't want to insult them. Simply it's clear today that the game suffers to be quite less that the fantastic new TBS leader: it miss the target of "revolutionize the TBS world" or "resurrect the TBS genre".

[rcampos]

Dear all, I said we should go have a holiday in Marseille. That's an admission of my guilt.

Luv you all all the same

[War4ever]

will a patch fix the lump of coal in your stocking ?

[woody]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Can somebody from Firaxis give a rough outline of what is expected to be fixed with this patch?

Air superiority, some minor balance issues, probably the broken coastal fortress, possibly some fixes for a few people that are having video problems. Don't expect too much, just the serious stuff. It's already been rumored there's no update to the editor.

To the whiners that expect the combat rules to be changed to what they were in Civ2: forget it. They ain't gonna unbalace the game for you.

[eRAZOR]

I'd prefer Firaxis making statements about the contents of the patch and not some self proclaimed "insider". Thank you.

[woody]

Originally posted by eRAZOR
I'd prefer Firaxis making statements about the contents of the patch and not some self proclaimed "insider". Thank you.

Who put a bug up your @ss, and elected you thread Nazi? If you don't want to read my speculations, then don't. Pretty simple, huh? Jerk.

Originally posted by Woody

To the whiners that expect the combat rules to be changed to what they were in Civ2: forget it. They ain't gonna unbalace the game for you.

So you think Spearmen should be able to beat Tanks? That sure sounds balanced to me. Not. There are major balance issues with this game and the last time I checked you don't speak for Firaxis. The "whiners" ,as you and others like to label them, have a legitimate complaint about how combat is resolved in the game. When a magazine such as PCGAMER points this problem out in their review of the game I think it is a valid complaint.

[wickedwombat]

Will there be a "patrol" function like SMAC in the patch? I want to protect my coastlines but it gets very tedious manually moving them back and forth. Thanks in advance.

[Vonotar]

I'll make this brief, IMHO....

"Civ3" IS A VERY GOOD GAME

"Civ3" IS NOT "Civ2 + Extras" IT IS A GAME IN ITS OWN RIGHT

OK it does have some bugs, it does have some strange quirks but spamming these forums and cursing the programmers of Firaxis there family and future offspring will not solve anything.

I honestly find the patience of Firaxis amazing given the abuse they have had on this and other websites.

If we can all keep our head and respond positivly to Firaxis (and yes positive critisism IS POSSIBLE) then i'm sure Firaxis will listen to us and will in each instance either fully fix the problem, amend it, or patiently explain to us that this is the new way things are done.

I personnally would prefer NOT to see a Civ4 anytime in the near future (yes I said NOT). Instead I would prefer to see Firaxis build on the foundations they have with Civ3, now i'm not a serious programmer but even I can see that Civ3 is designed to be heavily customizable which means that if we are mature and adult about the way we complain about bugs it will be easy for Firaxis to fix them, and when the eventual editor tools appear they will be very extensive!!!

Give Firaxis a break and they will work on the problems, then once Infogrammes have run out of copies of Civ3 they can start selling copies of Civ3.1 (to those who don't have Civ3, im not advocating selling existing Civ3 users a patched version)

Be constructive and Civ3 will have a long future.

Vonotar

[woody]

Originally posted by Vonotar
I personnally would prefer NOT to see a Civ4 anytime in the near future (yes I said NOT). Instead I would prefer to see Firaxis build on the foundations they have with Civ3, now i'm not a serious programmer but even I can see that Civ3 is designed to be heavily customizable which means that if we are mature and adult about the way we complain about bugs it will be easy for Firaxis to fix them, and when the eventual editor tools appear they will be very extensive!!!

Be constructive and Civ3 will have a long future.
Vonotar

Agreed. Civ2 had a long future, and I expect Civ3 will be played for years to come. It does, of course, need a good editor, but that will come. I expect we'll get a much improved editor sometime next month.

I'd eventually like to see a Civ4, but not for about five years. That schedule seems to have worked out well, so far.

[Arkatreides]

To the whiners that expect the combat rules to be changed to what they were in Civ2: forget it. They ain't gonna unbalace the game for you.

No but they could add a FP/HP option to the editor so that I can (un)balance the game for myself

[FALVES]

Originally posted by Vonotar
"Civ3" IS A VERY GOOD GAME

"Civ3" IS NOT "Civ2 + Extras" IT IS A GAME IN ITS OWN RIGHT

OK it does have some bugs, it does have some strange quirks but spamming these forums and cursing the programmers of Firaxis there family and future offspring will not solve anything.

I'm 100% with you!

I've been having one hell of a good time playing the game and I dont understand all this winning about oblivious details.

It's not perfect (yet), but hey, neither is the world...

[NeoBlade]

Perhaps if you people stopped calling everyone whiners just because they have complaints with the game, you'd be more liked.

I haven't played the game yet but I have played every other civ game ever made and I must say that if they took firepower out of the combat system then they've majorly screwed up.

Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable. Now, if you guys have never played Civ II, then please don't comment on this statement. Some say howitzers had an unfair advantage. Thats true, but thats also why they introduced "bombardment"

Sure, its got alota great features, ecspecially in the diplomatic area. Thats great if you like playing a game of "Adventures in Diplomacy and Capitalism" . But I want a WAR!!!!!!

As it stands CivIII has to much stacked against wageing war. THe corruption bug, air superiority problem, lack of firepower, culture, deposements and revolts. Sure, citys revolt, but they don't over take an entire army. Corruption can be bad, but lets take our country for instance. Our capital is on the east coast, yet Los Angeles is one of our most productive cities, and its alll the way over on the other side of the continent, not to mention america has many, many cities. If real life were like CivIII, Los Angeles and most of america whould be a gang ridden, lawless, post-apoctolyptic anarchy. Which it obviously isn't.

Now, the corruption bug and air problems will be fixed as well as some lag issues. But that still leaves the core problem of the combat system.

If Firaxis whouldj ust comeo ut and explain WHY they did what they did, I'd be happy, thats all I want, an explanation.

_________________________________

In the End, we have to decide how much "fun" were willing to trade for "realism".

[Roman]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
I haven't played the game yet but I have played every other civ game ever made and I must say that if they took firepower out of the combat system then they've majorly screwed up.

I have to second this.

[siredgar]

However, I would speculate that the game designers had it so that the calculations for a struggle were already made when the opportunity for deposing occurred.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable. Now, if you guys have never played Civ II, then please don't comment on this statement. Some say howitzers had an unfair advantage. Thats true, but thats also why they introduced "bombardment"

Bullshite. no stacked combat for a start. You attack with one unit at a time, defend with one unit at a time, and then if that loses, you lose every unit on the tile. Thats screwed up.

[Libertarian]

Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable (sic).

I deny the truth of that assertion.

[Vonotar]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
I haven't played the game yet......

But still consider yourself able to comment on the game?

Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable. Now, if you guys have never played Civ II, then please don't comment on this statement.........

I have played Civ2 extensively. It was not perfect. It is a matter of belief for me that perfection does not exist and something can always be bettered in the same way that there is always a number higher than infinity (this annoys the hell out of my girlfriend!)

As it stands CivIII has to much stacked against wageing war.........

Yeah cos war in real life is sooooo easy, how dare Firaxis invent ficticious things like war-wearyness (who ever heard of people disliking a war)

Come back and tell us what you think WHEN you have played Civ3

[NeoBlade]

If I had said I played the game, whould you people respect my opinion..No, so I won't shut up.

FIrst off, quit picking apart posts, Why must everyone in here be so political. Your takeing everything I say out of context and bending it for your own arguments sake.

Let me refrase what I said, when I was refering to Civ 2's "perfect" combat system I was refering to the Attack/Defense, Firepower/Hit points system that made the fighting very realistic as far as the match ups were concerned. Everything made SENSE.

Of course Civ 3 has improved on the same areas I had problems with, mainly ATTACKING ONE AT A TIME. Which has bothered me from day one. BOmbardment seemed like a duh and even the fact planes don't "kill" units is good too since really all they do is soften targets, not kill. Stacks are great but I think CtP did a better job if what I hear of Civ3 stacks is true.

There are many great features to this game, don't get me wrong, they've done alot to help the combat system, but THEN they have to take away firepower. It dosen't make sense to me, why add all these periphiel enhancements to the system then take away an INTEGRAL part. It boggles me and along with the other flaws, preventing me from buying the game since it is non returnable. I'll wait for FIraxis to get its act together first.

____________________

P.S. I just now realized how much time I spend at this forum, I know every facet of this game and its gameplay without even playing it for a minute. I have no life.

[woody]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
I haven't played the game yet but I have played every other civ game ever made and I must say that if they took firepower out of the combat system then they've majorly screwed up.
Civ 2 had a PERFECT combat system, that is undenieable.

Well, that settles it. You're a complete idiot.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
If I had said I played the game, whould you people respect my opinion..No, so I won't shut up.

Advice: It would be a really good idea for you to play the game before you comment on how it plays. Reading reviews only give you part of the picture and taking anything from this forum, the way it is now (negativist), you will definitely get a skewed picture of it. Either way I don't think you can truly appreciate the game for it's good and bad qualities until you've play it.

[AzureFlame]

Well I would say in the final analysis the game is broken if it is not fun. Well I've been playing Civ3 a lot and enjoying it, but here are the things that are not fun:

• Deposing of cities and losing a lot of units, with no way to stop it
• Air superiority
• Naval units not powerful enough
• Crashes to desktop, slowdowns (rare for me so far)
• Excessive corruption
• Wonders not expiring

So I would say these things should be fixed in a patch. Something like cities deposing or corruption might be "working as designed" but if they make my gameplay experience negative they need to be fixed. Does anyone actually think they make the game more "fun"?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi there,

I'm afraid that I'm another person who hasn't played the game yet, for 2 good reasons:
1) I'm waiting until my computer is upgraded (sometime in the next couple of weeks)

2) Even if I had a computer capable of running it, I had always planned to wait until they came up with the first patch (based on my experience with other games immidiately after release.)

With that aside, like NeoBlade, I feel like I know this game so well because I have read 100's of posts (both good and bad) about the gameplay experience!
My overall impression from these posts is that, at its very fundamentals, it is a great game (better than Civ2) especially in the AI department, culture/borders and bombardment areas. Most of the complaints I've heard are about relatively minor and easily fixable problems like the intercept and money bug, the inability of aircraft to kill when bombarding and the weakness of nuclear missiles (not to mention the editor!) I feel, however, that in 1-2 patches (optimistically) these issues will be FIXED!!! Then we will have a truly superior Civ experience in every respect, and Civ2 will become just a DISTANT MEMORY!!!!!

Anyway, sorry for the rant, just thought I'd add my $.02c worth!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: Dan is right, by the way. Almost NO software in this world is released in a 100% complete and bug free form!!

[Dr. Nick]

I agree, the Civ2 combat system was great.