A Worthy Successor?

[Axis Kast]

Disclaimer:

Despite all appearances, I am not intentionally throwing down the gauntlet to anybody here at Apolyton. These opinions expressed herein are my own, and I wanted to share them specifically for the purpose of seeing the response of a community such as this.

In all honestly, I will likely purchase 'Play the World' shortly after it is released, what I write below notwithstanding.


A Worthy Successor?

As we are all no doubt aware, Civilization is a legacy unto itself throughout the computer gaming world. Nearly all of today’s strategic, real-time, and management-oriented simulations such as Empire Earth or Roller Coaster Tycoon draw from Sid Meier’s original template of nation building. Yet after a pair of runaway successes in Civilization I and II, was the third installment worth the wait, and more importantly, worth the name itself? Unfortunately not.

It wasn’t just the lack of a multiplayer mode or even second-rate scenario editor that have spawn the widespread malcontent evidenced by fans the world over which robbed Firaxis’ latest creation of greatness. Even these omissions (however obvious as marketing ploys for the upcoming Play the World) were forgivable in the long run. After all, every game comes with its own set of faults, no matter how great. What nobody expected, however, was that Civilization III would be replete with the same to the point of overflowing.

Not only was the finished product prohibitively expensive (a problem when compared with its over-abundance of flaws), but it also clearly lacked in options, flavor, and diversity. All had been so expected of a game too long in coming; the letdown was significant. In essence, Civilization III was an over-priced shadow of what it might have been. In practice, it was a pretty face (that might have been far more pleasing still) over a body of limited worth, value, or attraction. Sid Meier somehow missed his mark, and as with Alpha Centauri, stopped remarkably short of a true masterpiece such as had been earlier found with the first pair of Civilization titles.

From the first time one loads Civilization III, irritation and speculation are constant companions. Why is the Artificial Intelligence so trying? How is it that most other civilizations seem to have clear access to resources not even available to the player after centuries of diplomacy and development? Where is the justification for agonizingly slow “processing” times between turn on computers that digital image fanatics would kill for? These troubles, however, represent only the tip of a far larger iceberg.

The game lacks first and foremost the range offered by even Civilization I, where the customization of one’s own empire was permissible. Although a hastily prepared, low-budget package might get away with the claim that initial creation of each individual civilization was in itself a massive undertaking, Civilization III, with its terrific budget and lengthy developmental period can take no such defense. Certainly, allowances should have been made for additional civilizations (the Inca, Carthage, the Netherlands, or Mongols for instance) even if customization was not an option. Somebody should have had the foresight to include a “pool” of images, special units, and technologies for the creation of a player’s own unique civilization, however – again because the game was so anticipated.

A dirth of units, attack options, and resources then becomes the next issue. Peltasts, phalanx, slingers, and horse archers are woefully absent. While it is true that combat in Civilization is essentially a beautified imitation of ‘Risk’ – there is no true use for anything more than basic counters -, eye candy is expected. The existence of a literally massive network dedicated to special unit creation should have tipped off Firaxis of the need for many nation-, area-, or era-specific units at the least. The designers might also have attempted to deliver more than one unique unit per civilization – perhaps, again, by era. America is known not only for the F-15E strike fighter, but also for its infamous colonial riflemen, vaunted cavalry, and elite commando units. Each would have offered a satisfying compliment to the single air unit offered. As certain others have noticed in the past, some unique units are simply out of place entirely. England, for instance, should receive the longbowman or dreadnought in lieu of men ‘o war, which should instead by revived as ships-of-the-line available to all nations. The game would also do well with special units as seen in the Conflicts in Civilization expansion; Napoleon, Wellington, Patton, Sun Tzu, Pancho Villa, Attila the Hun, and Yamamoto would make welcome additions to the unit pool. Designers might have considered “auras of improvement” or “special conditions” for these units, largely to represent their impact on history as was historically experienced. Units stacked nearby could gain minor advantages in movement or combat effectiveness; losing such an important unit could dictate unrest, revolution, or even combat ineffectiveness elsewhere in the Kingdom. As for attack or movement options, coastal cities should be able to fire on passing vessels from harbor defenses, as was the case with Forts and Fortresses in Sid Meier’s first classic, Colonization. Contact not only with barbarians, but also possibly with Native tribes not open to human play would have been interesting as well. Privateers could also have added to the mayhem: vessels of unknown origin preying on shipping would have changed the dynamics of the game at sea and on the diplomatic field especially. Certainly for the price paid, Firaxis could have added at least some of these improvements. As for resources, Sid Meier’s third creation also failed miserably. As one critic pointed out: “Who ever heard of one source of oil providing sustenance for generations or even centuries?” After a decade or so, resource squares should be rendered fallow or depleted of their special properties. The game also neglected silver, cotton, copper, bronze, lumber, coca, bananas, rice, precious stones, and tobacco – all major resources which at times defined and dictated entire eras – no, centuries – of history and conflict. Most might have increased happiness or wealth once within an empire’s territory. Bronze, lumber, and copper could at least have allowed construction of many early – and all later – units besides. Camels, elephants, and exotic beasts might have functioned after a similar fashion.

Weather was also ominously left out of the game. Excessive rainfall might have been the cause of innumerable floods, while a lack of water would precipitate crippling drought. Meteorological and seasonal patterns could greatly improve the dynamics and challenge of the game, offering special defensive or offensive bonuses, production increases, and possibly natural terraforming. Disasters such as fire, tsunamis, or tornadoes should also have been featured. Certainly, “ice age” or “starvation”-style games would have been a fun alternative to regular “bread and butter” scenarios.

Ah, scenarios, the next major downfall of Civilization III – in that they didn’t exist. Its second predecessor offered Roman and World War games besides the standard fare, each of which provided additional hours of gameplay. Civilization III was expected to provide so much more besides.

We could go on, but why? Civilization III is an obvious failure that will never be solved with the mere release of new patches, modifications, or even costly expansions. Even the most impressive of architecture must stand on a firm base – Sid Meier has produced none in this case. Sad that discovery ran us upwards of $50 in the marketplace.

[Tuberski]

What is the point of posting something that has already been said over and over on these forums?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Tuberski
What is the point of posting something that has already been said over and over on these forums?

He's a settler. He probably didn't know.

[Gangerolf]

Civ3 is the best civ game so far, so

A Worthy Successor?

yes to that

[Gangerolf]

Privateers could also have added to the mayhem: vessels of unknown origin preying on shipping would have changed the dynamics of the game at sea and on the diplomatic field especially

actually there are privateers in civ3

[Theseus]

Axis, you're welcome to your opinions, but do you know how to play Civ3?

[jdd2007]

i have gotten to yawning when looking at these. i am completely satisfied with civ3, and thats all im going to say.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


He's a settler. He probably didn't know.

I know, but the thing that really gets me is the fact that he will probably buy PTW anyway.

It's like complaining about getting kicked in the head, and then deciding to get kicked again.



If you don't like the game, why buy the expansion?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I know, but the thing that really gets me is the fact that he will probably buy PTW anyway.

It's like complaining about getting kicked in the head, and then deciding to get kicked again.



If you don't like the game, why buy the expansion?

I wont because I'm not big on MPing, and the fact I think the price is a little high for just an XP.

[Axis Kast]

Why would I buy Play the World? Largely because it offers multiplayer. Any game is made significantly more fun when the opponents are human and free-thinking. I'm also a sucker for duct tape, I'd probably be first in line. We'll call it a character fault.

What this essay also gets at is that Civilization III not only could have been so much more, but that it should have been. For the price I paid, the time I waited, and the predecessors I played? I certainly feel that a superior product - with all the frills - was called for in every case. That isn't what anybody got.

Remember - not everyone has the time or knowhow to use Mods to make a game better than it is. I want my money's worth. The $60, as I've said before, was all but wasted.

[Theseus]

Do you mean PTW?

And you didn;t answer my question.

[Axis Kast]

I have played Civilization III, of course - for a goodly period of time as well.

For three weeks I worked at "conquering" the world, and each day it became increasingly apparent that I was looking at nothing more than a mock-up of Civ II over which some paint had been splattered and a new interface designed.

[Theseus]

Ah, so that would be a "no."

[Flight]

lol theseus, exactly what i was thinking

[Axis Kast]

You have absolutely no comments of your own to make on how to better subsequent Civilization titles?

[Cyclotron]

Despite all appearances, I am not intentionally throwing down the gauntlet to anybody here at Apolyton. These opinions expressed herein are my own, and I wanted to share them specifically for the purpose of seeing the response of a community such as this.

We could go on, but why? Civilization III is an obvious failure that will never be solved

Clearly, you aren't terribly interested in seeing the response of this community, otherwise you wouldn't have dismissed the game as an "obvious failure" before even waiting for a response. Well, that's ok, but it seems odd to me that you are respecting a fair treatment of your opinion while nicely pointing out to us that our opinions are categorically rubbish.

Still, I feel the need to point out a select few things:

Napoleon, Wellington, Patton, Sun Tzu, Pancho Villa, Attila the Hun, and Yamamoto would make welcome additions to the unit pool

1) No, they wouldn't. The reason these were in CIC was because CIC was a compilation of scenarios. You'll note, I hope, that the editor leaves us completely open to make our own such hero units...

2) Try playing Civ3 sometime. There are privateers.

After a decade or so, resource squares should be rendered fallow or depleted of their special properties.

3) Again, try playing Civ3. Strategic resources do deplete. And while we are talking about resources, doesn't it seem like Civ3's resources system is better than Civ2? I mean, in Civ2, resources didn't even do anything except give bonuses... you could build a tank without ever seeing oil. Were you denouncing Civ2 for this when it came out?

As for attack or movement options, coastal cities should be able to fire on passing vessels from harbor defenses

4) And here it is again: Try playing the damn game. It's called a coastal fortress.

Ah, scenarios, the next major downfall of Civilization III – in that they didn’t exist. Its second predecessor offered Roman and World War games besides the standard fare, each of which provided additional hours of gameplay. Civilization III was expected to provide so much more besides.

5) Yes, I gape before the awesome might of the two Civ2 scenarios that had no new units, no new graphics, no new sounds... in fact, nothing new except a new map. Any idiot can do that (including me)... if you were going to make scenarios, that's about the poorest job you could do. If somebody put those scenarios on the internet today next to all the great Civ2 scenarios out there they would be laughed at seconds before being erased from hard drives all over the world. And yet, Civ3's lack of two worthless scenarios was a major downfall?

[Theseus]

Cyclo, I didn;t have the energy to write what you did, but that's what I meant. Good job.

Axis, I have made many suggestions about the improvement of Civ3 (and beyond), and have been gratified to know that 1) Firaxis was listening, and 2) so are the modders.

I've said this before: I believe that we have entered into a new paradigm of product development, with much tighter links and feed-back loops between the customer base and the designers. Firaxis, while constrained by legacy industry behavior and its relationship with Infrogames, has been doing a laudable job of evolving their methodologies.

I have two suggestions for you, both in regard to one's credibility when participating in a passionate and public forum:

1. Negative rants are usually attacked, in an immune system response. Thoughtful critiques and suggestions are usually welcomed, if couched properly (and, no, an empty disclaimer doesn't satisfy).

2. Get the facts straight... nothing cripples one's position as much as the vulnerability created by one's own mistakes. Even if there are valid arguments to be made, they are ignored in favor of fact-based attacks.

3. Know your terrain. Above, I am not just referring to Privateers and Coastal Fortresses... but additionally Apolyton itself. There are numerous threads debating the issues to which you allude; not to have done some reconnaissance was a mistake.

In other words, the attitude is unwelcome, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's all been said before.

[Ethelred]

The game is pretty good. Some of your complaints are legitemate. Others are clear indications that you just aren't any good at it.

I don't have resource problems. Anyone that learns how to play learns how to deal with the resources. So we can be sure that you haven't learned how to play.

The AI is pretty good. It was decent even in the original version.

The game is worth every bit of fifty. I have been playing it off and on since the game came out. Well the day after.

Its NOT just Civ II with a paint job. Its not Civ II. I suspect you haven't figured that out and that is one of your difficulties with the game.

Its not a war game. Many of your complaints were about it not being one. Go buy a grognard game if you want hordes of unit types. This a grand strategy game. I go through the techs and therefor the units fast enough allready. I have units that are obosolete by the time they get across the waters.

The game does not slow down on the AIs turn UNLESS you insist on playing on maps so large your game will be a major exercise in tedium. Hundreds of units and hundreds of cities is bound to get tedious and time consuming.

As for attack or movement options, coastal cities should be able to fire on passing vessels from harbor defenses, as was the case with Forts and Fortresses in Sid Meier’s first classic, Colonization.

They can. Thats what artillery is good for. Coastal defenses do that as well but its not very good at it. Use artillery.

Designers might have considered “auras of improvement” or “special conditions” for these units, largely to represent their impact on history as was historically experienced. Units stacked nearby could gain minor advantages in movement or combat effectiveness; losing such an important unit could dictate unrest, revolution, or even combat ineffectiveness elsewhere in the Kingdom.

Again its not a war game. Its a civilization building and expanding game. It might be nice to have that but it would mostly be a very minor thing not worth the huge difficulty of coding for. It would slow down the game and the AI.

Try making paragraphs of your paragraphs. That mono block section should be several of them not just one.

Well you are ranting about things that aren't what you think you want. I will will rant about hard to read paragraphs.

Contact not only with barbarians, but also possibly with Native tribes not open to human play would have been interesting as well

Not at all needed. It might be nice if Barbarians acted a bit more like a civ but there is no need for barbarians AND natives. They are the natives.

Privateers could also have added to the mayhem: vessels of unknown origin preying on shipping would have changed the dynamics of the game at sea and on the diplomatic field especially.

They are in the game. Have you played it yet?

Of course they could be more usefull. If you want it that way you can use the editor to enhance them to your likeing. Some people have added bombarment. That would make a lot more useful. The AI will use them if modified that way. However the timeframe for effecitive use of privateers, even modified, is quite short. As a consequence spending months of programming time on them would have been a waste.

As one critic pointed out: “Who ever heard of one source of oil providing sustenance for generations or even centuries?” After a decade or so, resource squares should be rendered fallow or depleted of their special properties.

Its an abstraction. If it was your way there would be a lot of screaming about it. A decade is just five turns or even less when I get oil. It depletes enough allready. You did imply that you have actually played the game. Didn't you notice that resources DO DEPLETE?

The game also neglected silver, cotton, copper, bronze, lumber, coca, bananas, rice, precious stones, and tobacco – all major resources which at times defined and dictated entire eras – no, centuries – of history and conflict.

Again those are abstracted. To many details will slow the game down considerably. Bananas were a major resource when? For Civs not Banana Republics. If you are so interested in minor resources like bananas may I suggest Tropico.

Weather was also ominously left out of the game.

Ominously?

"It was a Dark and Stormy Night when Sid butchered Civilization Three" said the Axis Cast as he buttoned up his bronze and brass buttoned black Scheutstaffle uniform with the nice silver and gold trim and the leather boots that had been tanned from the hide of Firaxis programmers."Surely he could have added WEATHER to a game whose shortest turn was a full year long. It is unconsionble that such a nit picking time consuming prommer wasting bit of micro management could be left out the game" Axis Cast continued longwindedly as he buttoned his tiny little codpiece made of the skin of exotic animals he thought should have been in the game.

Ah, scenarios, the next major downfall of Civilization III – in that they didn’t exist.

A semilegitmate complaint. For you anyway. I never had any interest in scenarious. I like takeing a civ from the beginning to the end. Its mostly usefull for a relatively small percentage of players. So Firaxis wisely concentrated on the aspects of the game most people were going to play. It is unfortunate that they had a time problem.

We could go on, but why? Civilization III is an obvious failure that will never be solved with the mere release of new patches, modifications, or even costly expansions.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes a failure. The game has done so well that they are still willing to spend money on patches and modifications that have been requested by the fans many months after the game was released. Few games have had this much put into them after release.

Its not a perfect game. Its doesn't have everything everyone would like. However it does deliver what it was supposed to. A game where can build and empire from the beginning of Civilization to the conquest of a new world.

And no stinking lawyers or eco freaks in psychadelic volkswagens as units.

[Flight]

precious stones

just to add; what the hell are gems then?

[Axis Kast]

Clearly, you aren't terribly interested in seeing the response of this community, otherwise you wouldn't have dismissed the game as an "obvious failure" before even waiting for a response. Well, that's ok, but it seems odd to me that you are respecting a fair treatment of your opinion while nicely pointing out to us that our opinions are categorically rubbish.

Clearly, you don’t understand that I’m laying forth only the opinion of one person. I didn’t ask for “fair treatment” of anything. I’ve already discovered that you don’t agree with me, but I have asked in what sense you can sympathize and provide your own suggestions on how to make better Civilization III.

No, they wouldn't. The reason these were in CIC was because CIC was a compilation of scenarios. You'll note, I hope, that the editor leaves us completely open to make our own such hero units...

A compilation of scenarios shouldn’t preclude players from being disallowed the benefit of “great figures”. I will admit that I was much-heartened to learn that ‘Play the World’ will feature “regicide” matches. It would be even better, however, were they to feature era-based heros or notables for each civilization. A historical figure isn’t merely the product or motivator of merely one single event; some define eras.

[quotes] Try playing Civ3 sometime. There are privateers.[/quote]

That may be the case, though I played well into the steam age (my enemies had ironclads and riflemen) and never encountered anything of the sort.

Again, try playing Civ3. Strategic resources do deplete. And while we are talking about resources, doesn't it seem like Civ3's resources system is better than Civ2? I mean, in Civ2, resources didn't even do anything except give bonuses... you could build a tank without ever seeing oil. Were you denouncing Civ2 for this when it came out?

I wasn’t aware that strategic resources depleted. In fact, one of the individuals I spoke to about this article voiced that specific concern. I merely amplified it as I didn’t have the experience to conflict or deny, nor any cause to suspect it as an error. The same is true of the coastal fortress.

Civilization II was also a product much cheaper in the long term; I paid $25.00 for a copy of that game, not $60.00, and for it’s time, Civilization II was a fantastical success story.

Yes, I gape before the awesome might of the two Civ2 scenarios that had no new units, no new graphics, no new sounds... in fact, nothing new except a new map. Any idiot can do that (including me)... if you were going to make scenarios, that's about the poorest job you could do. If somebody put those scenarios on the internet today next to all the great Civ2 scenarios out there they would be laughed at seconds before being erased from hard drives all over the world. And yet, Civ3's lack of two worthless scenarios was a major downfall?

Again, the high cost of Civilization III and lessons learned from Civilization II should have dictated something more. And also again, Civilization II had enough “going for it” in terms of success that a lack of special units (which had never come up at all, but later appeared in the editors and expansions) really didn’t seem that glaring. Civilization III, because of its obvious lack of so much, is much more at the mercy of criticism.

In other words, the attitude is unwelcome, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's all been said before.

My so-called “attitude” is an opinion. I stated my dislike for the game, not for you or anyone else. I do know what I am talking about because I laid down $60.00 and was supremely dissatisfied. If it’s all been said before, why not repeat here? Or expand?

I don't have resource problems. Anyone that learns how to play learns how to deal with the resources. So we can be sure that you haven't learned how to play.

I played for three weeks and was always at the “losing end” in terms of resources. Often, chance set me in some distant mountain range or on an isolated pseudo-continent with few strategic resources of the kind required for success later in the game. I held out; I did not prosper after the stream age. None of my neighbors seemed willing to do more than encroach upon my territory and liter the outskirts of my empire with both cities and fortified military units. Not a one was receptive to bribes, diplomacy, or even outright tribute and supplication. I played as the wronged party as well, and tried to appear strong before them. Despite a dizzying series of defeats, none budget.

The AI is pretty good. It was decent even in the original version.

I’ll accept that statement and support it. The AI is good. Too good. I enjoy a fair battle if you will, not a massacre.

Its NOT just Civ II with a paint job. Its not Civ II. I suspect you haven't figured that out and that is one of your difficulties with the game.

I attest that it is, albeit with a slightly higher learning curve and far more aggressive AI. There’s too much “bread and butter” about Civilization III. We’ll all agree it’s an improvement over Civilization I by a long shot. It’s hardly a step above Civilization II.

Its not a war game. Many of your complaints were about it not being one. Go buy a grognard game if you want hordes of unit types. This a grand strategy game. I go through the techs and therefor the units fast enough allready. I have units that are obosolete by the time they get across the waters.

In my experience, the most fun comes of fighting wars in Civilization games. Multiple unit types and great variety would only improve that experience. Civilization III does mangle certain unique units, however, and regresses significantly as far as equal assignment goes. The man ‘o war certainly needs to be open to all as opposed to the frigate.

The game does not slow down on the AIs turn UNLESS you insist on playing on maps so large your game will be a major exercise in tedium. Hundreds of units and hundreds of cities is bound to get tedious and time consuming.

I play on medium-sized maps with about five other civilizations, most of which I do not make early contact with. I run an Athlon 1800+ XP with a GeForce 3.

Not at all needed. It might be nice if Barbarians acted a bit more like a civ but there is no need for barbarians AND natives. They are the natives.

One of the joys in Colonization was that one could actually interact and not just conquer or fear Indian tribes.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Axis Kast


One of the joys in Colonization was that one could actually interact and not just conquer or fear Indian tribes.

Aren't the Aztecs and Iroquois in Colonization?

[Theseus]

As panag would say:

Have a nice day ....

[Cyclotron]

Ok, I'll bite.

Originally posted by Axis Kast
I’ve already discovered that you don’t agree with me, but I have asked in what sense you can sympathize and provide your own suggestions on how to make better Civilization III.

You asked nothing of the sort. In fact, you said:

Civilization III is an obvious failure that will never be solved

I am still wondering how you hope this phrase will get anybody to sympathize with you at all. If you wanted my suggestions, you probably shouldn't have informed me that it will never be solved... after all, if it can't be solved, what good are my solutions?

A compilation of scenarios shouldn’t preclude players from being disallowed the benefit of “great figures”. I will admit that I was much-heartened to learn that ‘Play the World’ will feature “regicide” matches. It would be even better, however, were they to feature era-based heros or notables for each civilization. A historical figure isn’t merely the product or motivator of merely one single event; some define eras.

Civ2 heros were just beefed up units. It's simple to make those in Civ3; you don't even need to wait for PTW. Civ3 has leaders appearing as great leaders... in fact, I'm fairly sure that most of the names you listed are in fact leaders in Civ3. If you would have rather seen leaders done differently, that's fine, but that doesn't make Civ3 a "failure."

That may be the case, though I played well into the steam age (my enemies had ironclads and riflemen) and never encountered anything of the sort.

They aren't too hard to find. Check your pedia.

I wasn’t aware that strategic resources depleted. In fact, one of the individuals I spoke to about this article voiced that specific concern. I merely amplified it as I didn’t have the experience to conflict or deny, nor any cause to suspect it as an error. The same is true of the coastal fortress.

Fine. You didn't know. But don't flame a game out of ignorance.

Civilization II was also a product much cheaper in the long term; I paid $25.00 for a copy of that game, not $60.00, and for it’s time, Civilization II was a fantastical success story.

The price, aside from being completely irrelevant to how good a game it is, is pretty much the market norm now. I got it for $40... I never saw it for higher than $50, but whatever.

Again, the high cost of Civilization III and lessons learned from Civilization II should have dictated something more. And also again, Civilization II had enough “going for it” in terms of success that a lack of special units (which had never come up at all, but later appeared in the editors and expansions) really didn’t seem that glaring. Civilization III, because of its obvious lack of so much, is much more at the mercy of criticism.

High cost has dictated nothing. If you don't want to pay, wait until the price goes down. Civ3 could cost $1000 for all I care, and I wouldn't buy it, but that would have nothing to do with how good a game it was.

Civ3, so far, lacks only two meager scenarios. I can't see any dichotemy in special units... heck, Civ3 comes with UUs, where Civ2 did not.

I do know what I am talking about because I laid down $60.00 and was supremely dissatisfied. If it’s all been said before, why not repeat here? Or expand?

I think some of us here would assume that you do not know what you are talking about, since you denounced Civ3 for three things that it already had. I certainly am under the impression you played for a day, and decided it sucked and found a site to flame it.

[Hunter Hutchins]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Aren't the Aztecs and Iroquois in Colonization?

Uh, yeah

You can trade stuff to them if they want it, or buy stuff from them if they have what you want, demand tribute or conquer. The Incas & Aztecs had cities usually with 10ks of gold, very profitable...anyway to digress...

Civ 3 isn't so bad...I don't like the HPs or the no scenario situation...but all in all it's enjoyable.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Axis Kast
I’ve already discovered that you don’t agree with me, but I have asked in what sense you can sympathize and provide your own suggestions on how to make better Civilization III.

If you had started out that way instead of acting like an expert while showing that you weren't you would have recieved a different response.

That may be the case, though I played well into the steam age (my enemies had ironclads and riflemen) and never encountered anything of the sort.

You could have built them. I have. That you didn't see them is hardly an indication that they aren't available to build.

Civilization II was also a product much cheaper in the long term; I paid $25.00 for a copy of that game, not $60.00, and for it’s time, Civilization II was a fantastical success story.

Funny you said FIFTY in you intial post. That one was correct. Civ II was NOT a $25 game when it was released. It was fourty something. Fourty-Five I think.

Again, the high cost of Civilization III and lessons learned from Civilization II should have dictated something more.

Again that 'high cost' nonsense. 50 is pretty normal these days. Firaxis intended for the game to be more basic in its unmodded state yet they still added resources and Great Leaders. Increased interaction with the other Civs. National characteristics. Oh and better graphics.

And also again, Civilization II had enough “going for it” in terms of success that a lack of special units (which had never come up at all, but later appeared in the editors and expansions) really didn’t seem that glaring. Civilization III, because of its obvious lack of so much, is much more at the mercy of criticism.

Especially from people that never figured out how to play or even that there are privateers in the game. They are in the manual you know. In the Civalopedia as well.

My so-called “attitude” is an opinion. I stated my dislike for the game, not for you or anyone else.

Now thats an attitude. You stated it HERE. That means you DID state it for EVERYONE else that is here.

I do know what I am talking about because I laid down $60.00 and was supremely dissatisfied. If it’s all been said before, why not repeat here? Or expand?

We allready KNOW that you DON'T know what your talking about. The game wasn't 60 unless you bought the limited edition and since you didn't mention any of the normal complaints about the LE its clear you bought the FIFTY dollar version. The LE was a ripoff and Infogrammes slit their throat on that. Who is going to buy a LE from them again? Glad I didn't buy it.

You didn't learn how to play so I am not surprised you are disatisfied. If you had asked for help you would have got it.

I played for three weeks and was always at the “losing end” in terms of resources.

I only had that problem when went up levels and had to learn how to balance what I was doing. If had been more of a war monger I might have managed it quicker.

Often, chance set me in some distant mountain range or on an isolated pseudo-continent with few strategic resources of the kind required for success later in the game. I held out; I did not prosper after the stream age. None of my neighbors seemed willing to do more than encroach upon my territory and liter the outskirts of my empire with both cities and fortified military units.

You were weak. There is no respect in the AI for wimpy civs.

Not a one was receptive to bribes, diplomacy, or even outright tribute and supplication. I played as the wronged party as well, and tried to appear strong before them. Despite a dizzying series of defeats, none budget.

I take it you mean you had a dizzying series of defeats because if it was the other way around you would have won. So you got your head to you on a plate. You simply didn't know how to win. If you keep getting beaten the AI is not going to be merciful any more than you would be. Well than I would be. Poor Tokagawa he started a war with me and now he wants out. He hasn't even done well enough to give me War Weariness and the war has been going for an entire era. He wasn't willing to pay so he can keep wasting his units trying to get past my artillery. While I take out Liz. I hate Liz. My favorite thing to do is to wipe out Liz and remove her face from the Foreign Advisor screen. Only Cathy comes close to the level.

You haven't had a real problem with the AI till you have England, Russia and Germany for your sole neighbors. In that instance Bismark was the most tolerable.

My bet is you let your experience with Civ II get in the way and played on too high a level. Maybe even tried Deity like so many did their first game. Go down to Regent. Thats easy once you learn how to play.

I’ll accept that statement and support it. The AI is good. Too good. I enjoy a fair battle if you will, not a massacre.

If you got massacred you simply didn't know how to play on the level you were playing. I have been beaten as well. Especially when I moved from Regent to Monarch. Took me three games to adapt. It was me not the AI that had to change.

I attest that it is, albeit with a slightly higher learning curve and far more aggressive AI.

Its not far more aggessive UNLESS you are weak. Then it is pretty aggressive but rarely as aggressive as a good warmonger player. I beat just beat three civs that all started a war with me in the very early game. On Monarch not Chieftan. They were aggressive about starting a war but not aggressive enough about waging it. Stuff like that happened to me when I first went up to Monarch as well. Then I got creamed. Instead of complaining I adapted.

The man ‘o war certainly needs to be open to all as opposed to the frigate.

Its a crappy ship either way. Frigates last just long enough to finish exploring the ocean (often not even that long) and then Ironclads start turning them into kindling. Very wet kindling. Ironclads don't last long either.

I play on medium-sized maps with about five other civilizations, most of which I do not make early contact with. I run an Athlon 1800+ XP with a GeForce 3.

You must be VERY impatient then. The game is plenty fast on my PIII 700 with 384 MB of ram. Thats on standard maps. Huge maps do drag. I would guess that the AI is doing so well in your games its doing a lot of moves. If you do better there are less AI units flogging about.

I mostly play on Standard size maps with either medium or large continents. I go for the middle on the rest except Barbarians which I set to either restless or raging, mostly raging. Raging can be a problem on Emperor so there I cut down to roaming. Always the standard number of civs which is seven AI civs for a standard map. I played one game on a tiny map with four civs.

Really I suspect your problem is that you tried to play on a high level and kept thinking like you were still playing Civ II. Even Civ II tactics should be good enough for Chieftan. Then again I lost my first game. The tuturial. On Chieftan. I was at war with every civ since the Ancient Era and lost on points in 2050. Later I learned how to avoid that. Most of the time anyway.

[Tuberski]

I win the game at warlord level. I'm still fighting Regent. However, I played at about these slevels on Civ 2 when it was new.

I installed and played a game of Civ2 the other day. I am winning on Diety.

I figure that when Civ 4 comes out I'll be ready for Civ 3 Diety.


The point is, Using Civ2 Strats on Civ 3 doesn't work as well, but doing it the other way makes Civ 2 easy.

[Axis Kast]

They [privateers] aren't too hard to find. Check your pedia.

I meant that I played the game to the steam era and neither encountered nor was given the option of building privateers.

Civ3, so far, lacks only two meager scenarios. I can't see any dichotemy in special units... heck, Civ3 comes with UUs, where Civ2 did not.

Again, Civilization 3 should have included far more gimmicks and new gameplay options; its high cost and the time spent waiting for its arrival to the shelves leaves little room for an excuse. Civilization 2 was good enough, also, that I wasn’t so concerned with it’s lack of higher-end options. After all, when that game came out, it was fairly decent as far as all other games went.

I think some of us here would assume that you do not know what you are talking about, since you denounced Civ3 for three things that it already had. I certainly am under the impression you played for a day, and decided it sucked and found a site to flame it.

Actually, my essay grew out of discussion on another forum on which we all agreed that Civilization III had “missed the mark”. My opinions above were worded harshly but still stood as valid when I brought them before others. Don’t you think I expected this kind of treatment on a forum not merely dedicated to strategic gameplay, but specifically to Civilization and its related titles?

I played Civilization III for three weeks and made little progress. Most of my games ended in a similar fashion despite my having sought help (tips/suggestions) on other forums.

Funny you said FIFTY in you intial post. That one was correct. Civ II was NOT a $25 game when it was released. It was fourty something. Fourty-Five I think.

Fifty or sixty; it’s still quite high for any computer game. Certainly some games now might be raising their prices to that level; when Civilization III first came out, however, it set a lofty price standard.

You were weak. There is no respect in the AI for wimpy civs.

Hardly. At one point I reconquered an expansion city of my own and savaged two enemy towns. I then gained another city by means of cultural expansion. Still the wars and expeditions against me continued even though I’d set the game to a moderate level of difficulty and slaughtered numerous enemy units.

I also get “shafted” with positioning every time. I’m always in jungle or in mountains with little or no resource value and can never trade because all other Civs simply “use” me and then attack viciously without reason.

I take it you mean you had a dizzying series of defeats because if it was the other way around you would have won. So you got your head to you on a plate. You simply didn't know how to win. If you keep getting beaten the AI is not going to be merciful any more than you would be. Well than I would be. Poor Tokagawa he started a war with me and now he wants out. He hasn't even done well enough to give me War Weariness and the war has been going for an entire era. He wasn't willing to pay so he can keep wasting his units trying to get past my artillery. While I take out Liz. I hate Liz. My favorite thing to do is to wipe out Liz and remove her face from the Foreign Advisor screen. Only Cathy comes close to the level.

You haven't had a real problem with the AI till you have England, Russia and Germany for your sole neighbors. In that instance Bismark was the most tolerable.

My bet is you let your experience with Civ II get in the way and played on too high a level. Maybe even tried Deity like so many did their first game. Go down to Regent. Thats easy once you learn how to play.

Incorrect. I dealt the computers – three of them, in fact – a series of defeats and seized four cities (one via cultural conquest). That should have brought them to the table not demanding bribes but asking for a cease-fire at least.

If you got massacred you simply didn't know how to play on the level you were playing. I have been beaten as well. Especially when I moved from Regent to Monarch. Took me three games to adapt. It was me not the AI that had to change.

I’m talking about a moderate difficult level of Warlord.

Its a crappy ship either way. Frigates last just long enough to finish exploring the ocean (often not even that long) and then Ironclads start turning them into kindling. Very wet kindling. Ironclads don't last long either.

It’s still unfortunate that certain “segway” units like the dreadnaught were left out at sea. The man ‘o war should also eclipse even the frigate. Especially on big maps, a variety of fighting units is important. As for UUs, Firaxis chose very odd ones indeed for some.

[Wormwood]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Axis Kast


I meant that I played the game to the steam era and neither encountered nor was given the option of building privateers.



Listen, Genius. Privateers are in the game. They are available with Magnetism. THey are available even in the "steam era", which is usually called the industrial age, and long after that.

[Lord Merciless]

Civ3 is a good game, but by no means perfect. There are plenty things I don't like about this game:
- Premature release. The game was virtually unplayable before 1.21 came out.
- Removing good concepts already implemented in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Social Engineering is one good example.
- Non-functional editor until 1.29.
- Poorly implemented air units.
- Warmongering seems to be the only effective strategy at higher difficulty levels.
- Monotonic AI behavior: always do the REX.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Axis Kast


I meant that I played the game to the steam era and neither encountered nor was given the option of building privateers.

You didn't have saltpeter did you? Privateers are in the game even if you couldn't build them. They are in the manual. They are in the civilopedia and I have even seen the AI build them occasionally. Not often, they aren't very useful.

I built seven of them in my last game. Just to put one in each cove of an inland sea. Cause they look neat and the cities didn't have anything of consequence to build. I even put a battleship in the middle of that sea. I held the whole continent and there was no chance of a successfull invasion but if there was I my privateers were prepared to do their duty and leave those cozy pirate coves to wreak havoc on the enemy. Should they ever put a ship in there anyway. Privateers can't do much really except spy.

Again, Civilization 3 should have included far more gimmicks and new gameplay options; its high cost and the time spent waiting for its arrival to the shelves leaves little room for an excuse.

As I allready pointed out, What high cost. Fifty is normal. They didn't have a long time to make the game. On top of which huge amounts of time were lost when Brian Reynolds quit AND took most of the Civ team with him. Firaxis basicaly had to start all over again.

Actually, my essay grew out of discussion on another forum on which we all agreed that Civilization III had “missed the mark”. My opinions above were worded harshly but still stood as valid when I brought them before others.

Preaching to the others that never learned how to play is not the same as doing it here.

Don’t you think I expected this kind of treatment on a forum not merely dedicated to strategic gameplay, but specifically to Civilization and its related titles?

No. You expected to prove your points and then found you made a lot of mistakes that no one had pointed out to you before.

Really you should have lurked some before posting that. I often type up things I later choose not to post because I thought better of it.

I played Civilization III for three weeks and made little progress. Most of my games ended in a similar fashion despite my having sought help (tips/suggestions) on other forums.

Not here nor on the Yahoo Civ III group. I doubt it was CivFanatics either. Must have been a rather poor bunch of players. Either that or you just didn't listen to good advice.

Fifty or sixty; it’s still quite high for any computer game. Certainly some games now might be raising their prices to that level; when Civilization III first came out, however, it set a lofty price standard.

It was FIFTY not sixty and it IS AND WAS the norm. Some games are a whole ten bucks cheaper. Heck I was paying fourty bucks for games on floppy disks in the 80's, fifty is cheap in comparison after taking inflation into account.

Hardly. At one point I reconquered an expansion city of my own and savaged two enemy towns.

Oh my gosh you took one city and failed on two others. I have taken an entire civ in one turn. That does require modern armour and a lot of rails. Otherwise the best I can expect is five or so cities in most cases. Per turn. Only one or two in the infantry time frame though. Its hard to beat infantry till you get tanks.

I then gained another city by means of cultural expansion. Still the wars and expeditions against me continued even though I’d set the game to a moderate level of difficulty and slaughtered numerous enemy units.

I just had a one city civ declare war on me. I considered it good excuse to excise Bismark from the game.

This a game. The AI is supposed to be emulating other players. They are out to win. They can't do that by letting you go. If you look like the weakest no matter how well you think you are doing you will be the target. Sometimes you will be the target because you aren't trading. The AI likes it if you trade and gets increasingly annoyed if you don't.

I also get “shafted” with positioning every time. I’m always in jungle or in mountains with little or no resource value and can never trade because all other Civs simply “use” me and then attack viciously without reason.

They almost always have a reason. If you get that bad a start and haven't yet learned how you might deal with it then just start another game. Some positions are never going to amount to much.

Have you installed any of the patches? The starting positions seemed to me to be more iffy in the first release of the game. I got stuck in difficult positions more often then. I dealt with them though. Once I had to build my palace in a nearby city it was so badly positioned. Now I know how to do it a bit easier.

If you abandon your capitol the palace will automaticly move to the most populous city. Just make sure the city want it moved to has the most population. By abandoning with a settler you can imedialty restart the city in the same place if you still want a city there.

Incorrect. I dealt the computers – three of them, in fact – a series of defeats and seized four cities (one via cultural conquest). That should have brought them to the table not demanding bribes but asking for a cease-fire at least.

First there is a minimum time for wars. This is because people were exploiting the heck out the AI by rushing one city and then demanding peace and money and tech from the victim. Then they would break the treaty and do it again.

Second the if the AI still has the troops to carry out an attack they are less likely to make peace.

Third if you have a bad reputation they aren't likely to trust you enough to make peace.

Finally if you were doing so well how come you lost?

Oh taking city by culture flipping isn't cosidered by the AI in its thinking about a war. They don't even get mad. If they get mad at the same time its a coincidence.

I’m talking about a moderate difficult level of Warlord.

Thats a low difficulty level. The AI is handicapped on Warlord. Everthing costs it extra and you can buy stuff from them for cheap in comparison to Regent where you on equal terms with the AI. The AI isn't even as aggressive as it is on higher levels. You just aren't getting a good start is my guess. Poor use of workers and you may actually be using the governors and be automating the workers. Both are mistakes as you will be the same crappy results as the AI does except for the AIs handicap on Warlord. Not building enough cities either. Those are usually the main problems that struggling beginners are making for themselves.

It’s still unfortunate that certain “segway” units like the dreadnaught were left out at sea. The man ‘o war should also eclipse even the frigate. Especially on big maps, a variety of fighting units is important. As for UUs, Firaxis chose very odd ones indeed for some.

The Dreadnaughts were only around for a very short time. The Man'o War is just a big frigate anyway. They really were the thing that made England Great Britain and not the Longbow. Still they are about the worst UU in the game. Right up there with the Musketeers in their pretty pink capes and the silly blunderbusses. I play France a lot and I can't post what I call those things. The censor filters will catch it.