Here's why we complain of things in Civ III that were in Civ II

[Libertarian]

Stacked movement: I can think of a few instances where I would like to have it, such as escorting settlers with a defensive unit to a prospective city site or escorting bombardment units. Other than that I'm not missing it, and I fail to see the big deal in it being left out.

Building railroads through a virgin mountain range requires nine worker-base-points per mountain to accomplish. If the mountain range has a density of four layers by three, you need 108 worker-base-points to accomplish your task. It would be convenient for, say, an industrious civ to be able to send a stack of nine foreign workers, or four nationals and one foreigner, etc., to a mountain to begin their work.

Now, you might not play that way. You might be satisfied to let the algorithms decide for you how your terrain will be developed, and that's fine. I won't begrudge you your playing style. But the very least that you could do is acknowledge that, for other people, group movement would be a great convenience and contribution to gameplay and immersion. No?

[yin26]

Not understanding why the need for stacked movement in Civ3 is like not understanding the 'big deal' about needing a checkered board in chess.

[Libertarian]

Or a text box with the capacity for more than one character.

[Zachriel]

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Too bad you guys are too irked to enjoy the game. It really is a great game.

"Joan, Baby, give me some saltpeter"

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by yin26
Not understanding why the need for stacked movement in Civ3 is like not understanding the 'big deal' about needing a checkered board in chess.

If chess was "Chess 3", and Chess 1 & 2 did not have checkered boards but were hugely popular nevertheless, people would not get your insistance that Chess 3 is utterly worthless for lack of a checkered board and that its designers were guilty of horrible lack of concern for the players because they failed to anticapate that you would think so despite it not having been an issue among the fans of Chess 1 & 2.

[yin26]

Sure, there are any number of silly reasons to program a crappy game. "Well, even though we know stacking would be really covenient and make a whole lot of people happy, we are simply bound by tradition to shoot ourselves."

[Deornwulf]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


I am generally critical of Civ3, but this one bugs me extrordinarily. "Appeared in other games" doesn't count. "Appeared in previous games in the series" counts. "Appeared in a feature list provided by the publisher/developer" counts. "Appeared in a previous game by the same developer but outside the series" sorta counts. "Appeared in a game in the same genre by somebody else" does not. The fact that the CTP series is a knock-off of the Civ series enabled by legal technicalities does not make Civ3 a sequel to CTP2. "It would have been nice" is valid - "it is a base expectation" is not.

When Windows came out, computer games started to utilize the mouse as part of the game interface. Games failing to do so were doomed to poor reviews in reference to the interface. I believe it is a valid argument to expect an interface feature common to multiple games to be available when it is appropriate for that game to include it. The stacked movement feature has been available in many wargames for years and does facilitate the mass movement of units. Critics of criticism often note that Civ III forces players to rethink the tired old strategies from Civ II, especially in planning wars. More units are now needed to successfully conduct an invasion. So why does the game not make it easier for players to move these units?

The base expectation for the feature is by the very claims present on the website and the box for the game - streamlined management."

I will agree that by itself, the lack of stacked movement is not enough by itself to declare the game a failure but it does add fuel to the fire.

[Gibsie]

I haven't played the game to the extent of pulling my hair out wanting stacked movement, but it'd be nice. In Civ 2 I could happily order 15 units to do exactly the same moce, because it happened instantly without any hassle. In Civ 3, there's laborious animations, and I can't be sure which unit will be picked to have its movement subsequently...

[cutlerd]

What makes CivIII such a mess (among some other things) is that you can so easily win in Despotism by conquering everything with a totally boring Horseman-to-Knight-to-Cavalry-***-Forced-Labour 'strategy'. Therefore they omitted Multiplayer, because everybody would have seen immediately that there is only one way to win if you are serious about it. I am not a big fan of AoK, but it has zillions of viable strategies. CivIII has only one, if you do play to win. With MP, people will see how repetitive the game really is.

Then don't go for that type of victory! One of the nice things about CIV3 is the multiple victory conditions. If you find that world domination is boring and easy by pop rush or what have you, then go for a UN victory or a cultural victory.

In CIV2 I had two victory choices. In CIV3 I have more. That is a good thing.

Devin

[cutlerd]

Sim City, if anything, is *more* rules-confined that is Civ3. Quit saying otherwise. But the primary difference here is that Sim City understands the 'let's hook the player for another minute and another and another' without intruding on him MUCH better than does Civ3. By far.

I am not sure about that, but the distinction is that in SIM City you are competing essentially against yourself, which is what Mr. Vu seems to desire.

Devin

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by cutlerd
Then don't go for that type of victory! One of the nice things about CIV3 is the multiple victory conditions. If you find that world domination is boring and easy by pop rush or what have you, then go for a UN victory or a cultural victory.

In CIV2 I had two victory choices. In CIV3 I have more. That is a good thing.

Devin

You don´t understand my point about MP, do you?

If at MP I do what you say, I´m dead. Because the other guy will rush me.

So what you say is I should be happy that the AI is not fit to exploit the rules. And I should be happy that there is no Multiplayer.

[cutlerd]

Calvin,

(Not responding point by point since the posts are getting long enough)

You've got limits, laws, and rules all mixed up. Limits are just arbitrary (and even temporary) restraints like, "You can buy 2-litre Coke bottle for 50c each today, but there's a litmit of 2 bottles per customer". Tech advancements must follow a RULE of tech progression, any reasonable rule will do and any set of names will be fine with me.

And this definition is....in a dictionary somehwere or your personal set of semantics? In my book, laws and rules are limits. Call it the Libertarian in me if you like. I know of very few rules that essentially expand one's choices beyond what would exist in the absence of that same rule and all other related rules.

If you decry limits of all sorts then you are decrying rules of all sorts. If you now wish to define limits as something entirely different from a rule, then I suppose there is a discussion in there somewhere, but it would have been nice for you to have made the distinction in your first post.

It seems now that your definition of "limit" boils down to "those rules I do not like".

Again you got game rules(i.e. those which stay thoughout the game and set the standard for the competition) mixed up with the arbitrary limits (like you can get only one tech research after 32/40 turns at the beginning regardless how much gold you throw into research).

At the dreaded risk of getting into another debate with Lib on the nature of random bifurcations and their inherent arbitrariness...how is the 32/40 research rule arbitrary? Do you have some definition of arbitrary I should know about that deviates from the norm? Do you believe the rule is arbitrary because it has no real life basis? The real life basis is the proliferation of technology. Once a tech is developed, it becomes harder and harder to exclude others from developing the same. That seems very un arbitrary and very logical.

By arbitrary do you mean arbitrarily included in the game? It has been stated by the designers that this was put in so that no civ would fall ridiculously behind in the tech race.

So thus far we have an "arbitrary" rule (or limit to satisfy your nomenclature) that has a logical basis in reality and a game balance purpose.

So, perhaps it is simply the numerical setting at 32/40 turns that is arbitrary? I assume the simple fact that the patch changed the setting is evidence that the new patched value represent not an arbitrary value but a value that produces an outcome the designers intended.

So once again, how the hell is this "limit" "arbitrary"?

So what if the Roman has access to both iron and horse plus a battalion of settlers looking for more camp grounds while you have none of these resources, what do you do ? Paying all the tributes and wait for a better time or restarting the game ?

What do I do? I put on my thinking cap and game-playing skills and devise strategies, both military and political, to overcome this bad situation, and having triumphed, feel the satisfaction of having gotten myself out of a tough position.

Do you like a "rule" which says that in the year 1 AD, and in that year only, you can only have a max. of 20 military units and all those beyond 20 units will be automatically disbanded ? This is to prevent the military blitz just like the 32-turn rule is designed to prevent the tech blitz. Then a rule to prevent luxury resource hoarding, another to prevent strategic resource hoarding, etc. You will end up with a system where nothing you do will make much of a difference at all.

Probably I would not like such a rule. But that would be because, first of all, there is already a limit to the number of troops you can build. You have to pay for upkeep beyond a certain number based on government type. Luxury hoarding? The mechanism exists to discourage it. You get no benefit from having multiple luxuries, so the incentive is to trade them for things you do need.

BTW, even Fixrasis fixed that corruption problem in the patches so it's not quite "obstacles inherent in the game" as you claimed. It just made the game tedious, pointless, and less fun.

Did I ever say "I never met a limit or rule I didn't like"? Note that Firaxis did NOT abolish corruption, they tweaked it. Corruption was too great, even though the game was still playable. I think they have it about right now. But there is a difference in tweaking corruption and calling for it to be removed as an "arbitrary limit".

Deornwulf lays out:

1. The game has no stacked movement. This feature has already appeared in other games and it is not unreasonable to have expected it in Civ III.

I agree completely. There is no excuse for lack of stacked movement. I've said so in more than a dozen posts. Again, the game is not unplayable without it...CIV2 had no stacked movement, nor did SMAC, but damnit, you are right. They should have gotten the hint from CTP and done stacked movement. Full agreement here.

2. The social engineering model for government used in SMAC provided for a more interesting challenge in conforming a government to our particular playing styles. Instead, we get five choices that are clearly set up in a progressive manner insinuating that one form of government is superior to another. If not Social Engineering, I could at least be given more choices.

Maybe. I too like the Social Engineering model of SMAC. But once again, saying a game can be improved is not the same as saying a game sucks. CIV3 basically has the same governments as CIV2 except that the Fundie type of gotten rid of, a government type that most people admit was broken in CIV2. Could they have worked hard to provide a non-broken Fundie government type in CIV3? Possibly...but frankly I don't see government type as a huge component of CIV3 in that it should be fine tuned to such an extent. The model works better in SMAC because of the storyline and the nature of factions. CIV3 government types do give me all of the basic varieties I need. Communist for modern aggression, Democracy for modern peace. Republic for ancient peace, Monarchy for ancient aggression.

So in this regard....yes more government types sure couldn't hurt CIV3, and SMAC style Social Engineering would certainly add to the game. But I do not see some glaring hole in the CIV3 government structure that needs filling.

Once again, there is a difference between finding improvements that might be made to an already good game and saying a game sucks.

3. Further on government, the corruption model is totally unrealistic. Why should the distance of a city from the center of government affect the level of corruption? Aren't there more creative ways to throw corruption into the game? Why have government affect so few aspects of the game? IMO, the programmers choose the easiest way from a programming stance and could care less about player interest.

Distance is a perfectly reasonable model to base corruption on. Now, to be honest, the model should be based on movement cost rather than pure distance, since the advent of railways effectively decreases the time of communication and the influence of the central government. Probably with the advent of airports, the distance should be reduced even further. But in ancient times corruption and independence of governors from the central government was critically influenced by how long it would take the central government to send troops to the area.

Even in modern times, corruption in Vladivostok, for example, if far more rampant than in Moscow, according to documentaries I have recently seen on post-Communist Russia.

Onto your further points without quoting:

Great People refers to leaders.

As far as resources go, it is simply a playability versus design system. If CIV2 had no resources, and you desire a complex resource system, then surely a simple resource system like CIV3 must at least go some part of the way to satisfying you.

CIV3 resources could certainly be more realistic. But on the whole, they add something to the game beyond CIV2, and they do just enough to accomplish what I want out of a resource system....to make every game different.....to promote trade or war with my fellow civs.

As far as trade goes, I have plenty of success trading with the computer. Are most trades better for the computer AIs than me on face value? Yes. But I don't have a problem with the AI being very stubborn in trades as otherwise there is just too much leeway for the human player to screw the AI in trading. But trade, I find, to be an enjoyable and integral part of the game.

I think your point #4 probably hits the nail on the head. I wasn't really around here much during the pre-release design and hype phase of CIV3. As such, I have no idea what was promised or not promised to you guys with regard to CIV3. But look, if I promise to give you a skateboard and instead I give you a new Toyota...you are a happy camper. If I promise to give you a Mercedes Benz and I instead give you a Toyota, while you may initially be disappointed, the fact remains that in both cases you got a Toyota.

IMO you should not evaluate CIV3 based on what was promised. You should evaluate Firaxis based on what was promised...but CIV3 is what it is and should be evaluated on its own terms.

Devin

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by yin26
Sure, there are any number of silly reasons to program a crappy game. "Well, even though we know stacking would be really covenient and make a whole lot of people happy, we are simply bound by tradition to shoot ourselves."

If you think Civ3 is a "crappy game" because it lacks stacked movement, then Civ1 & Civ2 must also have been crappy games since they also lacked stacked movement. If you think every Civ game in history was a crappy game, why should the fans or creators of the series care about your input.

Furthermore, to my knowledge nobody was being vocal about this until well after Civ3 released. So tell me, Mr. Yin, just how Firaxis was supposed to "know stacking would be really covenient and make a whole lot of people happy"? Quiji board? Crystal ball? Civ1 & Civ2 were mega hits that made Sid a so-called "gaming god" - neither had stacked movement - NOBODY *****ed about it back then - SO HOW THE HECK WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW IT WOULD BE SUCH A BIG DEAL!!!! Frankly, every criticism of Civ2 I ever saw BEFORE Civ3 hit the streets related to the need for additional event scripting capabilities, to combat system realism, or "dated graphics". Until Lib started his crusade, well after Civ3 hit the streets, nobody *****ed about lack of stacked movement.

They did a lot of stuff wrong, but they are inocent of wrongdoing on that issue.

[yin26]

From CtP, many people noted that stacked combat and stacking in general would be a most welcomed addition for Civ3. And common sense ALONE tells you that 'Gee, if we have 50 to 150 units to move around, is there any possible way we can improve on this 10 YEARS AFTER THE FIRST GAME!?'

As I've said before: Pong was a fantastic game for its day. Release Pong3 with little more than a 3D bobbing ball that makes stupid faces and idioitic suggestions and, well, I am well within reason to say: Pong3 sucks.

[Barnacle Bill]

Pong & CTP don't count. SMAC maybe counts. Civ2 counts for sure. Maybe I should start a campaign:
"EU had over 100 civs. Civ3 is a crappy game because it doesn't have as many civs as EU. Any twit who ever played EU would realize the players of Civ3 would want over 100 civs. Civ2 was a 6 years ago and EU was only a year ago, so all games henceforth must have the feature set of EU. Civ3 should be boycotted because it doesn't have over 100 civs like EU. Firaxis are a bunch of criminals because they won't respond to my 1000 posts to the effect that the game is unplayable unless it has over 100 civs like EU with an immediate admission of guilt and ironclad promise to release a patch by 5 PM EST tomarrow putting over 100 civs into Civ3."

[yin26]

O.K. Simply replace the word Pong with Civ. Sorry that was so difficult for ya.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Pong & CTP don't count. SMAC maybe counts. Civ2 counts for sure. Maybe I should start a campaign:
"EU had over 100 civs. Civ3 is a crappy game because it doesn't have as many civs as EU. Any twit who ever played EU would realize the players of Civ3 would want over 100 civs. Civ2 was a 6 years ago and EU was only a year ago, so all games henceforth must have the feature set of EU. Civ3 should be boycotted because it doesn't have over 100 civs like EU. Firaxis are a bunch of criminals because they won't respond to my 1000 posts to the effect that the game is unplayable unless it has over 100 civs like EU with an immediate admission of guilt and ironclad promise to release a patch by 5 PM EST tomarrow putting over 100 civs into Civ3."

You are a WARLORD, if you had 1000 posts you'd be a Prince or Higher !
Anyway, I agree that more Civ's are required, but that would need a bigger map, and a faster computer.

So if Firaxis release a 100 civ patch by 5PM EST tommorow, then I'll be waiting until next year for the first turn to complete. Maybe when I have a Pentium IX 64Ghz, with 64 Terrabytes of RAM with a Voodoo 35 Graphics card.
The problem is, the enigne is to slow to handle all those Civ's. I mean a turn with 16 civ's on a huge map can take up to 15 minutes of AI time.

[GePap]

Back when Civ2 came out, no TBS had stacked movement and Civ2 did not really need it, since it was unlikely that you would have as many units as one has in Civ3. So, was it OK for Civ2 to lack stacked movement? Yes.
Today, various TBS games have come out with stacked movement, and when you have 400 units, it seems more than a courtesy. Is it OK that Civ3 does not have it? No.

Standars change. I loved the games for NES and SNES, but would a 16-bit system survive 5 seconds in a market with 64+ bit machines? If you think so I have a lovely bridge you might want to buy. Face it, standards change, and things should be judged by the standard of their day. For 1996, Civ2 was an incredible game. For 2001 Civ3, unfortunitelly, is NOT.

[cutlerd]

You don´t understand my point about MP, do you?

No...the fact is that I have ahard time discussing MP features of a game that does not yet support MP. Seems a bit pointless and cart before the horse does it not? When MP is officially supported for CIV3, feel free to whine about it and I will be happy to listen. But otherwise, debating MP in CIV3 is pointless and speculative.

Devin

[Steve Clark]

Good to see a bifurcation debate, esp. with posters I have not seen before.

You know what I think one of the fundamental mindsets about all of this is? It's the Degrees of Expectations. It goes beyond expecting a certain feature in a game but more towards the expectation of wanting something to be changed. I think there are several variations of this:
- expecting to accept any results without question (Passive Expectations)
- expecting to suggest changes to improve results (Positive Expectations)
- expecting to assume the worst results without question (Negative Expectations)
- expecting to see all results changed regardless of consequences (Power Expectations)

There are probably more of such babblings but to put it simply, there are those that must protest loudly in order to affect change, those that desire to protest softly in order to affect change, those that will resist change and the many of those that will go along with whatever comes. All are valid.

For me personally, I take the perspective that playing a game is truly a luxury thing. It didn't matter to me whether Civ3 was developed or not, or even whether it's good or bad. It is not worth my time and effort to try to get Firaxis to bend to my will (or something like that) because there are many other choices in life than holding a group of developers accountable to something we don't need or had to buy. But others feel differently for whatever reasons and that is necessary as well. The conflict, I believe, comes in the different expectation levels and how we continue to respond to our (and other's) expectations.

[yin26]

Thus, Yin's Expectation Scale (tm) theoretically should have brought about world peace!

[Doc Paradox]

For me personally, I take the perspective that playing a game is truly a luxury thing. It didn't matter to me whether Civ3 was developed or not, or even whether it's good or bad. It is not worth my time and effort to try to get Firaxis to bend to my will (or something like that) because there are many other choices in life than holding a group of developers accountable to something we don't need or had to buy. But others feel differently for whatever reasons and that is necessary as well. The conflict, I believe, comes in the different expectation levels and how we continue to respond to our (and other's) expectations.

Ah, the Voice of Reason finally speaks! Yay!

[Sikander]

I have enjoyed gaming since the early 1970s, with board wargames and RPGs right up to the present era where the computer has taken care of all the book keeping and allowed the player to concentrate on the fun stuff like making decisions. I loved Civ 1, and played it to the extent that I didn't buy Civ 2 until the MGE. I'm not going to list the faults of Civ 3 in detail, as there has been plenty of that, and it ends up being completely a question of taste in many instances.

That said, I grew bored with Civ 3 very quickly. After about a week or ten days I just didn't want to play it anymore. I wondered whether it was perhaps only my mood, that I was growing bored with gaming in general, so I tried to revisit a number of games which have brought me pleasure in the past. It wasn't a mood thing for me. I still enjoyed MOO2, SMAC/X, MOM, RR Tycoon, EU etc., even though I have played these games for countless hours already and they have become quite familiar and no longer retain the thrill of discovery. Even Civ 2 is more fun than Civ 3, and I wasn't the biggest fan of Civ 2 because it didn't offer much more than Civ 1 did, though it was a fine refinement of Civ 1.

Civ 3 bored me because I felt constrained by the game system to follow the obvious tracks, just as the AI follows the same constraints. This may make the game easier for the AI to remain competitive, but not to the extent that I wasn't beating the AI rather quickly. Unfortunately these constraints tend to preclude some of the techniques I used to keep some of the other games interesting, such as pursuing a quality vs AI quantity approach, which reduces tedious micromanagement and gives me a challenge when facing the AI horde that the AI's grasp of tactics could never provide given equal numbers.

A lot of the fun in playng these types of games for me involves finding new ways of doing things. SMAC, MOO 2 and MOM were the best games for this, because there were so many variables available right from the start, with different factions / races to play, and ship / unit designs to tinker with, or spell combinations to experiment with. Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu. Civ 3 is the least fun game of all those that I have owned in the entire genre. For that reason I uninstalled it weeks ago, and again offer it for sale at half price to anyone who loves it and wants to introduce it to a friend. (Still no takers on this after many weeks).

[Libertarian]

You are a WARLORD, if you had 1000 posts you'd be a Prince or Higher

From the FAQ:

Settler 1-30
Chieftain 31-100
Warlord 101-300
Prince 301-1000
King 1001-3000
Emperor 3001-10000
Deity 10001+

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by yin26
O.K. Simply replace the word Pong with Civ. Sorry that was so difficult for ya.

No, because civ is in the civ series, which changes the equation. Features of previous games in the same series justify annger if they are not in the latest edition. Features of games outside the series do not. CTP, EU, Imperialism, Pong, C&C and Red Baron 3D are all outside the series. Civ1 and Civ2 are in the series. A case can be made that SMAC is in the series, but it could arguably be excluded as well.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Grrr

The problem is, the enigne is to slow to handle all those Civ's. I mean a turn with 16 civ's on a huge map can take up to 15 minutes of AI time.

Although I think generically that more civs is better, my post was not intended to be a serious suggestion. It was sarcasm to illustrate the point that inclusion of a feature in other unrelated games does not create an obligation on the part of a designer doing a sequel to include that feature.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by GePap
Back when Civ2 came out, no TBS had stacked movement.

Not true - just no games in the Civ series or the Empire series from which it copied its unit movement & combat systems. Stack movement was indeed around in board games preceeding the existence of microcomputers. It also imposes its own set of game design issues, which is probably why Empire didn't use it.

Originally posted by GePap
and Civ2 did not really need it, since it was unlikely that you would have as many units as one has in Civ3. So, was it OK for Civ2 to lack stacked movement? Yes.
Today, various TBS games have come out with stacked movement, and when you have 400 units, it seems more than a courtesy. Is it OK that Civ3 does not have it? No..

It is by no means necessary that Civ3 have so many units. It could be reduced to Civ2 levels or below with much less coding than adding stacked movement, simply by making maintenance costs proportional to unit construction costs.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
A lot of the fun in playng these types of games for me involves finding new ways of doing things. SMAC, MOO 2 and MOM were the best games for this, because there were so many variables available right from the start, with different factions / races to play, and ship / unit designs to tinker with, or spell combinations to experiment with. Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu. Civ 3 is the least fun game of all those that I have owned in the entire genre.

Sums it up.

[Ironikinit]

Quoting Lib:

Building railroads through a virgin mountain range requires nine... (etc.)

End quote.

Ah, OK, another use for stacked groups, and it sounds pretty cool, really. Still, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get all bummed that stacked units aren't in the game, because it's still not that big of a deal. Now, if I was used to having stacks and they were taken away, I might be upset. Anyway, stacking and unstacking units could be more trouble than it is worth.

Quoting Lib:

But the very least that you could do is acknowledge that, for other people, group movement would be a great convenience and contribution to gameplay and immersion. No?

End quote.

Acknowledged, although it still seems nitpicky to me. Anyway, the faction in favor of stacked units has surely made its point by now, or if it hasn't, it never will. In any event, you come across as more approachable and reasonable here, Lib, so if that was your aim, congrats.

Quoting Comrade Tribune:

You don´t understand my point about MP, do you?

If at MP I do what you say, I´m dead. Because the other guy will rush me.

End quote.

Perhaps you and your opponent could agree not to use the tactic.

While I haven't played much MP of any of my favorite comp games, I do know that strategies that work great against the AI fail miserably against humans. Things might work out as you say, but they may not. Your concern is justified, of course, but maybe a wait and see approach would be better.

Quoting GePap:

Back when Civ2 came out, no TBS had stacked movement and Civ2 did not really need it, since it was unlikely that you would have as many units as one has in Civ3.

End quote.

I dunno about that. As it works out I play on smaller maps than I did in Civ 2. I also don't produce units just to have something to produce once my military and workforce is big enough for my purposes. I don't care to dig up an old huge map of Civ 2 where I controlled 90% of the land area and count the units, though, so I'm not going to argue it too much.

Quoting Sikander:

Civ 3 has only the very slight variations between nations, which really offer very little for the player to do after the selection is made in the start menu.

End quote.

While I liked most of your post, I had trouble with this bit. Civ 2 had no practical differences between cultures. While the difference between the civs may be of subtle and basic strategy may be much the same for some players, I play the Japanese differently than I do the Babylonians. BTW, I hope you find a taker for your offer to sell the game. At least you have a practical reason for sticking around the forum, unlike most of those who have uninstalled. What loons.

As an aside, I thought this was the thread where someone mentioned that the rules for air units was the same in Civ 1 and 2 as it was in Empire. I looked for it, but didn't find it while skimming the posts. In any event, that observation struck me as excellent.

[GePap]

I must agree completely with sikander. Civ3, most specifically in the later eras has very little charm and not much to do. In civ2, if I had time and extra enginners, I could terraform squares to try to push city pop. numbers up- I can't in this game. When I decided to wage wars in the late game, I always used paras- they made the game fluid and there is nothig so tense as waiting to see if that one small force you dropped deep in their land will survive long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Civ3 does not give me that enjoyment either due to miserable ranges.
I have been writing since I got to these forums, its all a matter of creating a world in which the player is fully immersed- any game looses it charm when this fades, even for a moment. In Civ3, that moment comes all to soon.