What game should Civ3 have been? - Page 2

Ironikinit · February 18, 2002, 11:41

Actually, I enjoyed SMAC enough that I probably would've been OK if Civ 3 had used SMAC as a starting point. I'd have to play the actual game before I could say if it would've been better than Civ 3, tho. With the right streamlining and Civ 3's good looks, it could be pretty good.

The Andy-Man · February 18, 2002, 13:00

if SMAC had been based on earh with Civ2 units, and a slightly different SE (one that fit earth more then a futuristic planet world), and maybe if it had resources - but implimented a little more like maybe Imperialsm 2, or in some way that 1 source of iroon dosnt feed a whole empire, and that your horses dont deplete even though you never used them.

so, if SMAC had bin the above, even if smac had just had civ2 units, it would have bin a brilliant Civ3, cos i luved the game, but the sci fi aspect put me off a lil.

also add massive maps and more then 7 civs to SMAC.

volcanohead · February 18, 2002, 13:03

Agree 100% with both previous posters. A seriously branched tech tree, some limited unit design, SE and resources, together with combat that took account of terrain bonuses, and you have a cracking game.

V

optimus2861 · February 19, 2002, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
For instance, what's this stupid bombardment feature? I like the idea, but the way it is implemented now, it's useless. Why build costly catapults or bombers when all they do is level a few buildings or killing some citizens of a city you want to capture a turn later??? In real ife, (level) bombers are very usefull for destroying the factories and plants of a city (thus paralizing its war industries), where you are not in the position of capturing the city with ground troops (UK-Germany, 1944)

You do realize that German war production peaked in July 1944, right? Despite four years of Alllied air bombings, mounting losses on the Eastern front, the collapse of the Luftwaffe, and the (re)opening of the Western front?

It really hasn't been until the 1990s that bombers have been able to execute true, precision strikes on enemy targets (maybe to an extent in the 1980s as well). Even then the issue of "What's a target?" still rears its head (c.ref. reports that Americans flattened a hospital/village in Afghanistan/Kosovo/Iraq). So I actually think that bombardment is one of the things that Civ3 models fairly well.

DrFell · February 19, 2002, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
DrFell, you make it sound so easy. I'd really like to see your deity save game, could you post it as promised? You said you'd have it up Friday.

It's not easy, just simplistic. I actually sometimes enjoy the early conquest (the early era is my favorite, rapid, decisive wars are fought here). Often things don't work out properly. Once you've made a couple civs your *****es, your all set. Before then, suprise cultural reversions can hurt you badly (which is why I raze civ no2, and incorporate civ no1s empire into my own), and sometimes you end up resourceless (relying on archers for conquest is a killer, you lose so many). The very early game is where most screw ups occur. I'm glad they hurt despot rush anyway, now things are a little more difficult. I have to work out what size cities need to be to produce most units quickly, and keep a size 1 slave pop rush city around. I recommend you try it though, pick the Egyptians, they're chariots are great as cheap and quick to get horsemen. If you have no horses buy iron working, if you have no iron rely on archers. Build about 3 cities, barracks in each, and pump out the units.

No saves posted yet, I want to try out the new patch with no despot rush properly first

Ironikinit · February 19, 2002, 17:54

I guess I'm being too subtle.

What I'm saying is that I think you're a liar, DrFell.

FNBrown · February 19, 2002, 18:06

I kinda like the game as it is... I would definately enjoy a few additional fixes (better editor - real scenarios), and maybe a nice expansion pack (more civs, techs, units, etc)... If Firaxis is willing to keep the game lively with occassional updates like this, then it'll be enjoyable for a long time.

Raion · February 19, 2002, 18:07

Yes, and in Civ IV there should be polls.
And the Gods buried their heads.

candidgamera · February 19, 2002, 18:24

Civ3 + Rail Tycoon 2 + EU

DrFell · February 20, 2002, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I guess I'm being too subtle.

What I'm saying is that I think you're a liar, DrFell.

Because you do poorly on the highest level it means everyone else has to? That doesn't make much sense. I don't need to prove myself to anyone. I guess when mp comes out we'll see. But for now go try out what I said in my post, and see where it gets you. Make sure to demand as much as possible off the AIs you conquer when you make peace. You can't go out insulting me when you've never actually tried my strategy before (it's not even all my strat, check the strategy forums, this is just my implementation). Then you go ahead and post your own saves.

P.S, if you think I'm lying about being in university, go right onto the zone and ask around. Now, over here I can use the university PCs but I don't have one of my own, thus no civ3. I go home most weekends, then I have access to my own PC+internet.

ACooper · February 20, 2002, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I guess I'm being too subtle.

What I'm saying is that I think you're a liar, DrFell.

Don't waste your breath(typing fingers?). He'll never back his words. He just likes to talk.

DrFell · February 20, 2002, 11:44

Funny, considering I just wrote a post on how I play. Do you want me to elaborate? Read my posts, and try out my strategies before you comment on them.

I have heard this **** all before though.

Martinus Magnificus · February 20, 2002, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by optimus2861

It really hasn't been until the 1990s that bombers have been able to execute true, precision strikes on enemy targets (maybe to an extent in the 1980s as well). Even then the issue of "What's a target?" still rears its head (c.ref. reports that Americans flattened a hospital/village in Afghanistan/Kosovo/Iraq). So I actually think that bombardment is one of the things that Civ3 models fairly well.

Okay. you might have a point there. But that leaves an interesting question: Why build bombers anyway (both in real life and in Civ 3)? IMO they are much to costly compared to their use. I mean, if what you say is true, what can you effectively DO with (WW2 type) bombers??? The same goes for catapults.
In Civ 2 you had a very good reason for building catapults, bombers and fighters, in Civ 3 I can't imagine a single reason to build them. Destroying buildings is of no use at all if you plan to capture a city soon, especially cultural buildings, which are destroyed anyway when you capture the city.
Weakening defences is a valid reason, but since a bomber does that only about 20 percent of the time, it's not effective to use bombers for that purpose. That leaves only population decimating as a valid reason, IMO a rather unrealistic one (you don't honestly believe that the allies bombed the helll out of german cities during WW2 just to decimate the german population, do you?).

loinburger · February 20, 2002, 12:15

Martinus: Dresden might be an example of population decimation...

Jac de Molay · February 20, 2002, 12:18

All I was basically looking for was a civ 2 with slightly more units and techs, and a much improved. I have never been for eye candy, just a quality game

DrFell · February 20, 2002, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
All I was basically looking for was a civ 2 with slightly more units and techs, and a much improved. I have never been for eye candy, just a quality game

Yep, a more balanced version of civ2 with updated graphics, a bigger tech tree, better multiplayer options (simultaneous moves that work), and maybe even a version of the culture that is in civ3 (but implemented in a different way) would make a great game. After all, civ2 was similar but more balanced than civ1, and it did really well.

The Andy-Man · February 20, 2002, 12:27

i agree there, nice graphix etc are pointless in a game like civ. i said before, they could still use Civ1 grpahicx, it would still be a good game.

as for bombers, they were imensly useful in WW2, they werent acurate, but without them the allied invasion would have failed, hitler would have bin able to invade england etc.

also, the mosquito bombers of WW2 were fairly accurate.

Jac de Molay · February 20, 2002, 12:52

Late Edit- A much improved AI I meant to say. I sorta like the older look of the game. Reminds me of my Stratego and Axis and Allies days

Dave

optimus2861 · February 20, 2002, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
Why build bombers anyway (both in real life and in Civ 3)?

Because what bombers can do, is strike a distant target without having to engage the enemy army first. If you've got air superiority over the target, you can even strike with immunity. Even the best-planned ground assault is going to take casualties. This "loss of life" factor isn't modelled at all in Civ (any version) which is a shame.

Quote:

in Civ 3 I can't imagine a single reason to build them.

I can. If I want to hurt my enemy without engaging his army. If I'm going to conquer him anyway, I'd still want them in a support role. But even in SMAC, I've had great fun sending waves of planes into enemy territory just to bomb terrain improvements and kill terraformers, to cripple enemy production when I can't deal with him/her directly. (This is SP, obviously, in MP that wouldn't work as well I imagine)

(The irony is that after a faction submits to me, I end up redoing all their terraforming myself

).

Quote:

That leaves only population decimating as a valid reason, IMO a rather unrealistic one (you don't honestly believe that the allies bombed the helll out of german cities during WW2 just to decimate the german population, do you?).

Well, the whole history of bombing in WW2 is kind of contrived. It all started out of the mistaken belief that bombers could win the war on their own, then the ante was upped to terror bombing, and with Bomber Command being reluctant to relinquish its "strategic" role, it kind of took on a life of its own.

Dis · February 20, 2002, 16:28

well I'm in the minority here. But all I really wanted was civ2 with better graphics and animations. I just got tired of the static civ2 graphics.

essentually all I wanted was bells and whistles.

I really didn't expect the programmers to go to such extreme lengths to hurt the human player. Lack of challenge wasn't the reason I stopped playing civ2. I wish they understood this. Yes before you say it, I realize I can always play on warlord level of civ3. But is that fun? I think not. I shouldn't have to be punished to have a fun game.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the gameplay in civ2. Just a few things needed changing like army support. That is one thing I love about civ3. I hated my armies being supported from cities in civ2. I couldn't send out caravels in democracy because of the unhappiness problems sometimes.

But I realized after test of time, that a successor to civ2 was impossible. In TOT they took a near perfect game and screwed it all up. Amazing. I only bought civ3 after everyone said it was so great the first week it came out. That is my fault.

Aeson · February 20, 2002, 17:11

I think Civ3 is a great game the way it is, but certainly could be improved. A type of Social Engineering and Unit Workshop should have been included with Civ3. It really would have been fun to be able to choose between equiping units with your choice of weapons, armor, and specialized training. Also it would be fun to be able to keep playing after launching, continuing your empire on Alpha Centauri. It would use the same game engine as Civ3, and the tech tree, improvements, datalinks and wonders have already been developed in SMAC, all they would need is a graphical face lift. If those things were included in an expansion pack I would definitely buy it.