My Civ 3 review

[Trifna]

Okay, I know it's been quite some time the game's out now. But I had this in mind since quite come time. I already wrote this text many weeks ago, but my computer crashed and I lost like lot of time of writing... Here is the actual resumed and rewritten version:


What makes a good world is its coherence. You can't have rules that go once against the other and are conflictual, or you can't call it a world and stil consider these conflictual parts. Lords of the Rings is coherent, Dune is coherent, Ann Rice's books, Odyssee, Ultima (not speaking of online, dunno it), Final Fantasy, StarCraft (in its own referencial), and many others. Such worlds make them immersive because they are plausible and strong, powerful. Civ I and II were quite coherent because they were able to make a macro model correctly.

Civ III is not coherent with its own world and it is its bigger flaw, most recognized problems beeing from this. Colonization? Cavalry? Battle system? Spying? Civ III's referencial is History. Civ's world is History. To be coherent with itself, it needs to be coherent with history OR leaving the idea it's following History since humans (which is History) do not do such. It does not at all mean to take it too seriously and let fun go, but it means that you should look at History to try to get its general rules and look what fun you can make from it. Not invent rules simply to make units balanced. Units that really existed in History were perfectly coherent within their world. THEN, you will be able to feel you're ruling a country, a culture, human.

Cavalry? Well they tend to lose 4/5 of their men and come back with all thei men a little later. For people from Quebec, here was my 1st thought: "YÉ OÙ L'O**I DE NÉCRO?!" which means "Where the hell is the necromancer?!". Incoherent. Why did they put cavary like this? Not to make it feel more like real, but just because it seemed fun. For the same reason they added a unit doing this or that in StarCraft: seemed fun. Battle system? I dunno since when some units see a great difference between attacking and beeing attacked. Nor since when such units can kill such other. Results are incoherent based on Civ's reality (we checked). Colonies? Same. And so on.

OR Firaxis decides he wants to build something coherent, OR he decides to let go the idea we're managing a civilization on Earth and is making a game where it's just fun, but isn't a world. Because OR you make fun from coherence, "role playing" as a civilization, OR you just know you play and play it for what it is: a game. From the time it is not coherent, you,re just in a game and not in a world, you just play. Being more than a game, or beeing just a game, there is the question.

I guess I (roughly) said about what I wanted. Think what you want of it.

[Spec]

Bof, t'exagère un peu pis j'me suis pas demandé y'étais ou l'OSTI de nécro. Mais je comprends ton point. C'est quand même juste un jeu, pas la réalité. Mais si Civ3 serait parfait, on aurait pas besoin d'un Civ4!!!

Breifly said: I agree expect for the necro thing.

Spec.

[Worthingtons]

Is Montreal in france?

[Spec]

Of course not!! It's in Québec, Canada! You should be ashamed of your self!!!

Spec.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Spectator
Bof, t'exagère un peu pis j'me suis pas demandé y'étais ou l'OSTI de nécro. Mais je comprends ton point. C'est quand même juste un jeu, pas la réalité. Mais si Civ3 serait parfait, on aurait pas besoin d'un Civ4!!!

Breifly said: I agree expect for the necro thing.

Spec.

I don't speak like this in real life, but it really is what automatically came to my mind when I saw the horses.

[woody]

Originally posted by Trifna
I guess I (roughly) said about what I wanted. Think what you want of it.

Well, personally I think that was the worst review I have ever read. You didn't review anything! You talked something about coherence in the game, but I didn't see any in your post.

So what were you trying to say? Was it supposed to be a review, or did you just mislabel the subject?

That's my review of your "review".

[Spec]

Originally posted by woody


Well, personally I think that was the worst review I have ever read. You didn't review anything! You talked something about coherence in the game, but I didn't see any in your post.

So what were you trying to say? Was it supposed to be a review, or did you just mislabel the subject?

That's my review of your "review".

[TheDarkCavalier]

Ever heard of HEALING?! Imagine this... ONE Cavalry is attacking ONE knight... The knight slashes it a bit but gets killed... The Cavalier rests a while, heals and moves on... of course that's just stupid but maybe that was the idea of Sid? .. we could say "YE OU L'ASTI D'DOCTEUR?"

O yea.. I recently played on Regent to achieve the "PERFECT" civ.. too bad my tanks got destroyed and some cities with mech. inf. razed by some cavalry ... talk about history...

I would really like to see campaigns perhaps, or something b/c only SP/skirmish games get boring fast...

[hexagonian]

Actually, it's this way...

Your knight (in civ3) represents 500 men. They go into battle. Though taking many losses (300 men are killed) they do manage to win the battle.

Then magically, they are renewed to new strength (for FREE mind you) No cost to your empire to replace the men, damaged equipment and so forth...other than the cost of time.

Seems like magic to me!

[Spec]

Originally posted by TheDarkCavalier
.. we could say "YE OU L'ASTI D'DOCTEUR?"

[TheDarkCavalier]

How do YOU know it's 500 men?! >

[hexagonian]

My post should of read like this - sorry for any unintentional confusion it may have caused...

Originally posted by hexagonian
Actually, it's this way...

Your knight (in civ3) represents (...pick a number, any number of) men. They go into battle. Though taking many losses and (pick a number, any number of) men are killed, they do manage to win the battle.

Then magically, they are renewed to new strength (for FREE mind you) No cost to your empire to replace the men, damaged equipment and so forth...other than the cost of time.

Seems like magic to me!

Hope this helps

[Spec]

Maybe they have medics? Anyway, who gives a sh|t, the important thing is that they either survive and heal or die. Like in real life....Some soldiers make it and some die. Those who make it heal up, maybe the're missing an arm but they heal. And that's why they get elite! Cuz they can still fight but with only one arm! That takes skillz man!!

Spec.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by woody


Well, personally I think that was the worst review I have ever read. You didn't review anything! You talked something about coherence in the game, but I didn't see any in your post.

So what were you trying to say? Was it supposed to be a review, or did you just mislabel the subject?

That's my review of your "review".

All what had to be said was said. I could have talked about the game's balance? I just did it since balance is based on this. I could have talked of the game's unit types? What influenced it was what I just said. I could have talked of the game's general rules or systems? Same. Graphics, sound, music? I'm not buying such a game for this, as long as it's correct. I said all had to be said. It is THE flaw, and it is everywhere since it is as a general rule.

[Leonidas]

IMHO Civ 2 (especially many user scenarios), SMAC, EU2, etc tried to be more than just games. They attempted to rise above mere gameplay for its own sake. There was a certain vision and inspiration in their creation.

But games like Empire Earth, Command & Conquer and Civ3 just feel like "games" to me. . .

Albeit, they are good games. But still just games. . .

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Rothy
Is Montreal in france?

Good Lord, man, it used to be part of your Empire! It's still a part of the Commonwealth!

Is it in France? Sheesh....

[Barchan]

I'm not sure I'd propose magic or necromancy as the explanation for the regeneration of unit HPs. I'd rather rely on the concepts of natural healing and replacements.

When a unit suffers "casualties", as used in military terms, some of its members are killed, wounded or lost in battle. In most cases, the number killed and lost is much smaller than wounded, usually about a quarter of the total number. In the battle for Iwo Jima, for example, the total number of US casualties was around 28,000; of this figure 6,821 were killed. Some of the wounded will be permanently disabled, but many will be able to return to combat within days or weeks. This is the “healing” aspect of a unit; when taken off the line for “R&R” it will naturally recover a percentage of its personnel who were missing or wounded.

Units that suffer permanent casualties are almost always given replacements to bring them back up to full strength unless there are no replacements available or the unit is dropped from the rolls. (As an aside, during WWII Hitler forbade any unit to be dropped from the rolls; after the German 6th Army was destroyed during the battle for Stalingrad, he ordered it be entirely reconstituted in Germany with new personnel and equipment.) Admittedly, this takes time and treasure to do, but I for one am glad that the game simplifies this in the abstract “time heals all wounds” way that it does. It does a pretty decent job, too. IRL, it takes a lot longer to get replacements to a unit in the field than in garrison, so I think the game does a good job of incorporating the ability of Barracks to speed the repair/refit/replace functions to get the units back up to fighting strength faster (all HP/turn vice 1/turn in the field).

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Barchan
I'm not sure I'd propose magic or necromancy as the explanation for the regeneration of unit HPs. I'd rather rely on the concepts of natural healing and replacements.

When a unit suffers "casualties", as used in military terms, some of its members are killed, wounded or lost in battle. In most cases, the number killed and lost is much smaller than wounded, usually about a quarter of the total number. In the battle for Iwo Jima, for example, the total number of US casualties was around 28,000; of this figure 6,821 were killed. Some of the wounded will be permanently disabled, but many will be able to return to combat within days or weeks. This is the “healing” aspect of a unit; when taken off the line for “R&R” it will naturally recover a percentage of its personnel who were missing or wounded.

Units that suffer permanent casualties are almost always given replacements to bring them back up to full strength unless there are no replacements available or the unit is dropped from the rolls. (As an aside, during WWII Hitler forbade any unit to be dropped from the rolls; after the German 6th Army was destroyed during the battle for Stalingrad, he ordered it be entirely reconstituted in Germany with new personnel and equipment.) Admittedly, this takes time and treasure to do, but I for one am glad that the game simplifies this in the abstract “time heals all wounds” way that it does. It does a pretty decent job, too. IRL, it takes a lot longer to get replacements to a unit in the field than in garrison, so I think the game does a good job of incorporating the ability of Barracks to speed the repair/refit/replace functions to get the units back up to fighting strength faster (all HP/turn vice 1/turn in the field).

Maybe the general concept goes correctly for general units (even if maybe it should take some time or something), but cavalry are just stunning.

And even then, it is only ONE of the effects of what I talked about in my general review. The problem is still the coherence.

[Master Marcus]

If I remember correctly, there is a small village in France called Montréal ...but that one is a "town" with no specific relations to the North Am "metropolis"...