CIV3's Shortfalls - Despite being a fantastic game!

Jason Beaudoin · March 23, 2002, 09:21

Before someone here starts to blast me for being negative, allow me to say that Firaxis has produced possibly the best strategy game of all time.

That said, I think there are two things that were really not thought out thoroughly:

Leaders: They simply aren't that important in the game, only because they are so difficult to produce by civs that are not militarilistic. Once you get them, sure.... they can produce a wonder in a flash, but they are rare... a little too rare... and maybe a little too powerful once you get them.

Colonies: What the hell is a colony? I think Firaxis really missed the boat on this one. How often do we actually use these? I never do.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 23, 2002, 09:48

I never build colonies: the AI and I are always settling very rapidly, reducing the need of buidling a colony to acquire a luxury that's not in anyone's borders yet. Besides, what other use have colonies? IMO they're just like sleeping sheeps...: can't build anything, don't become cities, ...

Why were they put in the game in the first place I wonder?

Leaders represent a worthy concept/idea, but some Apolyton posters have suggested things like Great Artists (extra culture/happiness for the city he frequents?) and Great Politicians (easily switching between governments, less war weariness, ...).

I'll always favor more options that lead to more choices and better fun playing, and I suppose the Great Leader concept could/should be expanded ...

Regarding the other shortfalls of Civ3, ..., well, I guess most things have already been mentioned on the various threads around and I suppose Firaxis has gotten the message by now ..!

AJ

Sargeant_Kirby · March 23, 2002, 14:26

I think that CIV3 didn't take even 20% percent of what SMAC offered to its players.
1. custom unit building?
2. custom government type?

I used to write many suggestions when CIV3 was created. And I am dissapointed with many things:

1. Religion? Civilization advance and City improvement. I'm not a believer, but I know better.

2. Fungus/towers from SMAC could be an EXCELLENT way to describe barbaric lands. The squares themselves could be "barbaric", with great centers-towers that are much stronger.

3. Emigration-immigration. When unrest in one city, they should flee to nearest enemy city... at least this much.

4. BIG FLAW - the possibility to peacefully conquer/dominate the world is not good enough. Cultural influence? Bah. Excellent idea but poor in reality.

5. Alternative attack modes not supported:
a) City siege - surround the city with units - it surrenders after a number of turns.
b) sending settlers/workers to enemy towns to increase percent of foreign population. (yes, it happens all the times in our history, its just not viewed in that way).

Sargeant Kirby

notyoueither · March 23, 2002, 14:54

[Moved to it's own thread.]

Shadowstrike · March 23, 2002, 16:01

Kirby's list is a good start, but I'd add the lack of true scenario making flexibility. Civ2 was one of those games you could mold into any image. I've seen Civ2 scenarios that cover specific wars, and others that cover grand stretches of time. I've seen fantasy and sci-fi scenarios. Civ2 was simply a platform to be built upon. With that capability mostly removed in Civ3, Firaxis has shortened the game's lifespan to 2 - 3 years, at most. Teams of dedicated scenario makers produce works that extend the playability of a game, for free, and produce high quality work. Why deny them to ability to create?

Inverse Icarus · March 23, 2002, 17:46

i really miss social engineering.

Beren · March 23, 2002, 17:49

The most frustrating thing about colonies is that they're not your territory. Whenever the ennemies expands its borders you might loose your colony without war.

Trevman · March 23, 2002, 22:57

I have never, ever seen the AI use artillery. They might actually do very well militarily if it will use them. I can blast away huge garrisons and then stem their counter-attacks. It gives the human an unfair advantage I think.

Inverse Icarus · March 23, 2002, 23:23

Civ3's shortfall: Lack of Multiplayer.

there i said it. (again).

Coracle · March 24, 2002, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
Before someone here starts to blast me for being negative, allow me to say that Firaxis has produced possibly the best strategy game of all time.

That said, I think there are two things that were really not thought out thoroughly:

Leaders: They simply aren't that important in the game, only because they are so difficult to produce by civs that are not militarilistic. Once you get them, sure.... they can produce a wonder in a flash, but they are rare... a little too rare... and maybe a little too powerful once you get them.

Colonies: What the hell is a colony? I think Firaxis really missed the boat on this one. How often do we actually use these? I never do.

I will "blast" you for being too timid to say how bad and flawed Civ III really is. The game has been slammed for months on this forum at length.

Yes, Leaders are a failure because they give minimal benefit to your military and to combat. They should supply a combat bonus, but don't.

Colonies are a waste of time. All a rival civ has to do is build a city nearby, or have its borders flip, and the colony vanishes.