conquerization 2.5

dikwhit · March 26, 2002, 14:45

I sit here and read threads and see some of the various posts and it causes various dilemas for myself and was looking for some feedback.I discovered this wonderful little game several years back called civ2 for my good old ps2. This of course led to civ2 pc and now civ3 pc or as i prefer to call it conquerization2.5.

Why 2.5 you might ask? Well lets see why.

1)The civil has been removed from civilization. The only way to remain competitive on harder difficulties is conquer,conquer, conquer and the quicker the better.You wanna score big you gotta clean clocks fast or play a monster map and proceed milking and man is that tedious as hell. if you go with option one nationalism is a late game feature and if you go with option 2 the games over 500 years before you can end it.Basically damed if ya do..or dont.

2) Absolutely no benefit in remaining peaceful,it doesnt help score, international relations or domestic relations. If your peaceful your score blows. The trade deals the computer initiates are a joke. Also the last time i checked (real life)regardless of how many cities a nation has every time a new city develops it is not 100% corrupt ... forever... need i say more?

3)Government viablity in wartime. Last i checked democracies dont collapse or corruption get worse any time there is a war thats lasts much over 5-6 turns or you have troops inside enemy borders at the end of your turn. Best example would be the U.S. in WWII. We had troops from here to Timbucktu and EVERY continent inbetween and yet our government got better .... not go right in the crapper.

4) Substitue republic for democracy in 3)

5)Flame here..... Exactly how much money did Info.Inter. pay for the graphics(terrain) that SNOOPY did 10x better for nothing??? Kudos Snoopy

6) Less is more. Bullpoop. Less techs,govts, units, even fewer useful units etc etc etc adnauseum

7) Artillary I could go forever on this alone but i'll keep it brief
Ground artillary is always captured w/out a fight ????? What about the soldiers loading,moving,firing the artillary??
Naval and air... always destroyed. If you can capure my radar artillery and use it immmediately why are planes ships missles nukes etc destroyed... if your going to be bad be consistantly bad.

8) Patching. Why wait and send it out in lump sums?? MP isnt active we are all playing solo why not put a small patch out when its ready i.e. bombing kill toggle on/off as opposed to waiting a month or two so they can give us the same small patch with spelling fixes and puntuation corrections. Dammit you rush a half finished product and then putz around with fixes. yeah i know they already got our money no need to rush something thats free.

I know in some cases ive ranted and raved a bit but dammit when you put Sids name on a sequel one expects a finished product not something thats a civ engine waiting for the mod community to finish it.

Much more to say but wanna get some feedback first. Thx peoples

Cookie Monster · March 26, 2002, 15:50

dikwhit I couldn't agree with you more

Especially with arguements 1,2,3, and 8. Civ3 has degenerated into a game where through skillfull play you may be able to delay or stall war but you can't avoid it altogether.

Play nice with everyone, bow to their every demands no matter how ludicrous, keep up a strong military, and you still end up getting betrayed by a gracious ally. WTF? Even if you don't end up getting attacked by someone you end up going to war over and over again just to increase your score (i.e. increase your territory = increasing your score) or to secure 1 saltpeter from your neighbors inventory of 3 saltpeters.

Dominae · March 26, 2002, 16:09

dikwhit, let me take up your complaints one by one:

1. Too much war.

Unfortunatly, every civilization that I can think of (and certainly all those included in Civ3) had war as in integral part of their history and success. It would feel great to play out the civs as peaceful superpowers, but it would be 1) completely unrealistic/historic and 2) very boring in the long run. I, for one, cannot play 100% Builder anymore without falling asleep somewhere in the early Industrial Age.

2. No benefits for peace.

Again, unfortunately, historically war has proven its worth over and over again, from a empire's perspective. Even so, I do think that peaceful relations are useful in Civ3. On the higher levels, I can almost never get a Domination or Militaristic victory (never tried Culture); my only two options appear to be Spaceship and Political (usually as a fallback). Being at peace with most of the other civs is higly condusive to these two types of victory.

3+4. Democracies and Republics should be viable in wartime.

I agree with you here, from a realism standpoint. From a gameplay standpoint, I'm sure you understand that the best governments economically can't also be good at war. A good compromise would be to have a short boost in the economy of a Democracy in wartime, but even more severe penalties to happiness (this is just off the top of my head).

5. Average graphics.

No comment because I don't know what you're talking about.

6. Not enough units, governments, etc.

Personally, I find the game quite enjoyable (strategically and aesthetically), even though they cut down on everything. What happens when you have too many choices is that certain ones are determined to be best, and the others are rarely used (I never ever built Knights in Civ2, for example). By simplifying everything, all aspects of the game are useful in the right circumstances.

7. Bombard units are captured too easily.

I'm no expert in warfare, but I'm pretty sure that a small contingent of native warriors could overtake a bunch of cannons with their crew if those cannons weren't properly defended. You just didn't walk your catapults up to a castle completely undefended; any two-bit general would simply walk out and claim them. The same goes with the modern versions of these weapons (even more so, I think).

8. Patches come too infrequently.

This has to do with good software practice. I won't go in to the details of it right here, but (trust me) it's better to release good-sized patches periodically than continually spitting out whatever little fix you came up with. In any case, this has nothing to do with bad customer support on Infogrames' or Firaxis' parts. In my opinion, they're doing a great job of trying to keep everyone happy (except for that multiplayer thing...what were they thinking?).

Dominae

dikwhit · March 26, 2002, 16:24

dominae thx for input a few things though.
1)no prob with war just its the ONLY way to score points
2) i turn off both those options find them completely unfufilling
3) viable is key word..... they just arent
5) snoopys terrain graphics in files section--- something Firaxis could aspire to
6) usefull units who actually builds radar art/copters/privateers etc. and the smaller tech tree than civ2 how is that an improvement?
7)more a complaint of consistancy either capture all bombard units or all are destroyed not the these you can have these are destroyed
8) when mp hits i agree with you but until then when you fix it get it out there.... no necessity that every1 is playing with all the same fixes

as i keep asking does any1 know when betatesting is done and we will get the finished product?????

Arrian · March 26, 2002, 17:05

dikwhit,

There is one area in which we are in total agreement: the scoring system. It rewards conquest - early and often. That's the way to amass a huge score (unless you feel like ICS bullying, as demonstrated by Aeson, which requires no actual fighting. See his notes on his borg style American game... it's nuts, but that's another story...). The scoring system is two parts territory, one part population, with a bonus for happy vs. content people. The most effective way to amass a large, populous empire is to fight.

That can be frustrating for those of us who have more of a "builder" mentality. So can the fact that the single most poweful tool in the game is only available through war - the great leader. Scoring was obviously not well-thought-out by Firaxis, because (unless I'm going nuts) it's not even adjusted for map size, or at least not properly.

So I try to ignore the score, and suggest you do the same.

Regarding war under republic or democracy... it all depends. If you manage to bring the wonders of the Sistine Chapel, Bach's Cathedral and Universal Suffrage to your civilization, along with some police stations, you will find that war is viable under those governments, particularly republic. Actually, you don't need all of those things - I often do without Bach.

My first target when fighting is any strategic resource which will cut off enemy production of the best available unit (if Cavalry, I try to cut horses and/or saltpetre), but a close second is the enemy's luxury supply. In fact, sometimes I go straight for the luxuries, particularly if I'm starting the war. That will go a long way to helping war weariness, while hurting your opponent badly. The other key is bringing in allies - not because you actually want their help, but because this prevents the enemy from bringing them in on his side, thus getting you into a multi-front war which will drag on and on.

-Arrian

Dominae · March 26, 2002, 19:00

dikwhit, your comments are definitely useful in attempts to "clean up" Civ3. There's some points that I think needn't be changed though:

1. War

I can't imagine a game of Civ without war. The new Culture system is cool but (as I think most people will agree) a game without a few battles (at the very least) is quite boring. I think the designers knew this and the scoring system reflects that. Plus, Domination and Militaristic victories are the most difficult, IMO.

2. Victories

I find all types of victories fulfilling (with the possible exception of Diplomatic...as I said, it's more of a back door), it all depends on the difficulty level you're playing on. If you find yourself not enjoying the space race because it isn't much of a race, time to jump up to Emperor or Deity.

3. Diversity

The low diversity of units, techs and governments in the game is quite refreshing. Notice that a lot of the diversity in Civ3 actually comes from the different civ characteristics (Industrious, etc.) and their UUs. Having a bunch more units on top of this would be daunting. (As a side note, some people do build Privateers, Radar Artillery, etc. and swear by them; this forum is full of good examples).

4. Releases

If for nothing else, you want periodic patches because this is easier for the average user. I can imagine that someone who plays Civ3 very casually won't want to install patches every couple of days just to stay up to date. If you get "Critical Update Notifications" every couple of days from Microsoft (as I just got right now), you understand how annoying getting too many patches can be.

Dominae

notyoueither · March 26, 2002, 22:29

Actually...

The concept of capturing the guns is as old as cannon.

A large part of Napoleon's artillery at various times was taken from the Austrians, Prussians and Russians.

The use of captured guns persisted long afterward. The Germans of 39-45 were the last famous example of it. They used many captured Czech, French and even Russian models of ordnance in great numbers.

The thing is that it is so easy to maintain them. Apply oil, build shells and have at er.

Harder now though, since the guns often come attached to vehicles. Much harder to keep vehicles, or air craft, in the field. Altough the Germans did that too.

To bring the point to a close, the loss of guns is considered a bit of a disgrace in many militaries. Conversely, avoiding such loss can be an accomplishment. I have seen it claimed proudly on behalf of the Canadian Army of 1915-18 that they never participated in a retreat and never lost a single gun to enemy capture (prolly because they never gave ground on any large scale. I'm sure that the literature related to other militaries would contain ideas on the same theme (the loss of guns). Just can't think of any specific references right now.

dikwhit · March 27, 2002, 00:02

canadian army..... insert joke here

Dominae · March 27, 2002, 00:24

Heh, at least our military didn't invade Spain by mistake!

Dominae

notyoueither · March 27, 2002, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by dikwhit
canadian army..... insert joke here

Joke? Uhhhhh... hmmmm... weeeelll...

You guys did a good job in VC country, right?

How bout that Laura Secord?

Why is it a White House?

Hint bud. Don't cast stones at people who have many, many to throw back.

You are right though, but if anybodies gonna make the jokes, it'll be us. You didn't give the secret hand-shake.

Cookie Monster · March 27, 2002, 11:17

Give him a break guys. I think he's just trying to fit in/be friendly. Then again look at the "online name" he chose.

dikwhit · March 27, 2002, 13:20

actually if that was a reference to my name sall'rite shortened version of real name.... had on license plate at 1 time.
sorry if the canadian thing was taken wrong but cmon where would south park, comp. games magazine, and professional sports be without canada to poke fun at.

Cookie Monster · March 27, 2002, 13:30

No offense taken, even my canadian friend laughed after he read your post.

And actually I admire the callsign you chose. That takes guts plus it's definately funny.

Happy gaming............

Kuciwalker · March 27, 2002, 16:39

You mean many, many pine cones to throw back. I knew all of your trees had to be good for something.

notyoueither · March 27, 2002, 19:14

Ohhhh. Nooowww you've all done it. That's it! The bombers are enroute to Alex Baldwin's estate as I type this.

But seriously, sorry if I came off harsh dikwhit. Just that I may be overly defensive of the people who continue to serve with honour and commitment while being p*ssed on by our own politicians. The state of our military is an issue to some of us. A bit of a sore spot as I may have demonstrated.

punkbass2000 · March 27, 2002, 20:57

Yeah, the waterbombers.

Gen.Dragolen · May 17, 2002, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ohhhh. Nooowww you've all done it. That's it! The bombers are enroute to Alex Baldwin's estate as I type this.

But seriously, sorry if I came off harsh dikwhit. Just that I may be overly defensive of the people who continue to serve with honour and commitment while being p*ssed on by our own politicians. The state of our military is an issue to some of us. A bit of a sore spot as I may have demonstrated.

Notyoueither, having served in the Canadian Military, even if it was for a short while (5 years), I too am rabidly protective of our Armed Forces. If anyone in this country should be complaining about being taken for granted, they should be. And yes we need to change the governing party and dump most of the senior civil servants as well: Ottawa has had status quo for too long.

And if the body would allow me to serve, I'd have volunteered for Bosnia and Afghanistan. (too old and too many sports injuries)

As for the scoring in this game, all I can say is that it's a good thing that you don't loose points for each combat casualty. Seems to be the harder I try to get 10 to 1 superior numbers on an AI Civs, the more casualties I take. Considering that one of the highest scores I have ever had was playing on Monarch and using the Egyptians for a cultural Victory. That was at about 3000 points when the closest AI was about 1500. I was taking cities by culture and pumping most of the populations into workers who were transfered back to core cities and Egyptian workers sent in to the new cities. Couldn't wait for the cities to grow on their own...and the AI was kind enough to keep up some wars to weaken alot of the cities I captured.

That win was before all the patches and I managed to get every culture related Wonder and most of the military related ones too. Have never come close to that again. Nor have I had as good a starting site: 2 wheat on a river in plains and a couple of plains with resources.

I'm going to see what fun I can have with the editor because if war is the only way to win, then the units should be a little more terrifying to both sides... nothing like fear of conflict to make an AI more cooperative.

Coracle · May 17, 2002, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
dikwhit I couldn't agree with you more

Especially with arguements 1,2,3, and 8. Civ3 has degenerated into a game where through skillfull play you may be able to delay or stall war but you can't avoid it altogether.

Play nice with everyone, bow to their every demands no matter how ludicrous, keep up a strong military, and you still end up getting betrayed by a gracious ally. WTF? Even if you don't end up getting attacked by someone you end up going to war over and over again just to increase your score (i.e. increase your territory = increasing your score) or to secure 1 saltpeter from your neighbors inventory of 3 saltpeters.

WTF - that sums up Civ 3.

You bet I have had Gracious civs I've had previously Polite relations with for a thousand years suddenly attack me. Why? That dumb bean-counting AI and its goofy coding.

The resource thing is also a joke. If you play with Firaxis' stupid values you HAVE to go to war regularly to obtain resources - even though such as coal and iron were NEVER that rare in reality. At least that I can Edit up a bit.

Ijuin · May 18, 2002, 06:50

I agree that the scoring system needs to award points for things other than just territory, future tech, and population. I would suggest adding (at default Regent level):

1.) 1 point for every 100 culture points your civilization has generated.

2.) 20 points for every city that has amassed more than a certain number of culture points (say, 5,000 points), and 5 points for every city that has amassed more than a certain lesser number of culture points (say, 1,000 points).

3.) 50 points for each Great Wonder you have BUILT (captured Wonders do not give this score bonus).

4.) 20 points for each Small Wonder you own.

5.) 1 point for every turn after 1 AD in which you are not at war with any other civ (this number never decreases, only increasing), providing you are in contact with at least one other civ (which means that if you know no other civs, you cannot get points for this). You get 2 points per turn any time it has been more than 20 turns since your most recent war ended.

Granting points for culture, peace, and Wonders would definitely make peaceful building more appealing, I believe.

Cookie Monster · May 20, 2002, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

The resource thing is also a joke. If you play with Firaxis' stupid values you HAVE to go to war regularly to obtain resources - even though such as coal and iron were NEVER that rare in reality. At least that I can Edit up a bit.

Have you noticed any differences since you edited? Even in patch 1.21f I find that war is still a necessity. Getting a big population and a large territory under your belt and then milking the game is the only approach that seems to work for me.