PDA

View Full Version : Civ 3 of the year


Vincent Fandango
04-01-2002, 08:03:39
For the german gaming mag "GameStar" (that's german and means Spielstern) it's Civ III. How sad, because it's a non innovative, mediocre sequel to a 10 year old idea.
In fact was 2001 a year with very few inoovative ideas and few good games. And I saw a lot of previews of more "X 3, Y 4, Z 5" games.

Qweeg
11-01-2002, 13:55:56
Civ3 is good, and if you refuse to agree i will beat you up! an that goes for the rest of you ungrateful whinney young folk with your damn walkie talkies and flashy technology and stuff. why back in my day we only had the likes of Aliens Vs Predator and Total Annihilation and many many other games to while away those long wintery hours.

You think of that the next time you think of complaining, or i'll bring out my teachin-paddle and MAKE you grateful!

Resource Consumer
11-01-2002, 14:12:28
I suppose, to be fair, you can say that Black and White at least tried to be innovative. It may have disappointed many. I don't think anything else really was, though.

I think that interview with Sid was quite scary - roughly saying if they want Civ4 then we'll give 'em Civ4. Looks like his creative fingers got burned with Dinos.

Vincent Fandango
11-01-2002, 14:14:15
Civ 3 is 15% a game of 2001, 15% a game of 1997 and 70% a game of 1991

Resource Consumer
11-01-2002, 14:26:22
And we all know where the 70% that is good lies.

Vincent Fandango
11-01-2002, 14:34:48
SMAC?

Roland
11-01-2002, 14:41:50
"Civ 3 is 15% a game of 2001, 15% a game of 1997 and 70% a game of 1991"

Und das ist auch gut so.

Shining1
13-01-2002, 05:01:39
That's perhaps the most interesting thing about CivIII - the way they purged all the 'Brian' influence from it:). So, no design workshop, no social engineering - just borders and a bit more diplomacy.

That was the thing about SMAC that initially made it worthwhile persevering with - it was the same game we had all played before, but it had some good NEW aspects to it.

Darkstar
13-01-2002, 09:39:22
Well, Civ2 WAS Brian's design.

All they did was remove the biggest elements of SMAC. The FUN stuff... like designing your own units. The UI for it sucked, but I'd rather be able to make units that fit the style I'd RATHER play, then play a style forced on me by unit templates assigned to me. Much more fun. Other then that... they did 'pacify' the AI a bit, so you don't have constant raging Jhihad. But it's still there, lurking in the code. The right kind of map shows that...

Qweeg
14-01-2002, 14:58:36
*musters alot more anger then actually feels and starts swipping at the air in clenched fisted futility in a perfetic attempt to impose my opinion on others thru violence*

i really can't understand your attitude, i mean Civ3 really does seem like the latest version of Civ2 to me, if it had been called TotallyOriginalNationRullingGame-One then sure, plenty of dissapointment to be had, but if you played a game of Civ1, followed by a game of Civ2, and then a game of Civ3- its like lookin at one of them Evolution of Man diagrams, with some bloke walking along followed by a party of gradually less bipedal primates, a smooth gradient based on tried and tested previous features with a little more (Not Too Much Mind!) added per generation.

SMAC/X was cool, i liked it more then Civ2- but to me they're as different as Alien Vs Predator is to Flashpoint really. Civ3 really is faithful to the previous Civ titles, its basically Civ with 3 new features (culture, borders and new diplomatic depth) thus- Civ3, do u see?

Are you seriously telling me you have not enjoyed in the slightest a single game that you've had so far? I'm still cheerfully bashing Civs over the head with the Glorious nations of China and Persia on a regular basis- (if only they'd included Partizans and ship-sinking Torpedo Bombers, sigh) i find it especially satisfying developing fine military traditions with which to persue aggressive expansionist militaristic imperialist jingoistic Jack-waving agendas on a regular basis. I also find wars don't tend to get waged for decades or all the time, in my games anyway peace is the norm, and winning the peace seems to count in the AI agenda with the addition of culture. I've seen wide borders between powers sharimng the same continent remain throughout entire games, that'd never happen in SMAC where a shared border basically means one of them No Retreat No Surrender thousand year wars will take place before the game is a third the way thru.

Of course i will grudgingly accept that some people just see things different or had dirfferent expectatuions from my own, of course if I ruled your counrty you would all obey my brutal demands and be rewarded with more wine for yor efforts.

Venom
14-01-2002, 15:10:09
I think Qweeg is one of Sid's illegitimate kids.

Qweeg
14-01-2002, 15:15:26
no i'm not. You will hurry up and finish building that artilliary piece now or i will whip you, with my whip that i have, coz i am a despot. Don't make me have to raize your city and forcably relocate its population now! (China does that alot when i'm in charge)

i just really enjoy the game becouse it falls within the parameters of my expectations based on previous Civ titles that i have played.

Roland
14-01-2002, 15:39:53
Exactly. Civ3 is ok, good deal of improvements over CIv2. The real annoying stuff is just the "editor" and that it sucks up memory/resources beyond belief. Actually, you could nickname Civ3 "Resource Consumer 3".

Would I call it Civ2.5 ? Yes. Is it too expensive for a 0.5 ? I'm not happy with the price, but no one forces one to buy.

Venom
14-01-2002, 19:22:41
So Civ III is Resource Consumers illegitimate child.

Vincent Fandango
14-01-2002, 19:40:04
Well, face it, it jus has become boring.

Snapcase
14-01-2002, 20:12:39
You forgot the 50% of Civ3 that's in 2002 and beyond.

Vincent Fandango
14-01-2002, 22:13:18
Are you the Ghost of Civ As Yet To Come ?
Bah, Humbug!

Darkstar
14-01-2002, 22:36:46
I've certainly not had as much fun playing Civ3 as I have playing SMAC or Civ2. Nor even of CtP2. It's not so much a 'bored with the whole World Conquest thing', for me. Civ3 just doesn't have that fantastic fun. It's merely OK. A choice between it and Mom (Master of Magic)? Mom will always win. A choice between it and SMAC? SMAC wins. A choice between it and FreeCell? FreeCell tends to win.

Civ3 is just SO brainless, that I only find it fun when my brain is near flatline. No serious options in it. No 'I don't WANT to have to research those 8 techs to get Armor so I can stomp those crazy Zulus and get a peace... Wait! I bet I can just get em with masses of low attack units! Let's see... Attack strength of moderate, no armor, cheapest chassis... YEAH baby! Suicide Troopers! Let's go!' Or even framing your current arch rival so they get slammed a bit by the others, and it sues for peace with you to deal with them.

You say you had OPEN land for a long time Qweeg? Well, now, I believe you are just telling tales... In NO GAME I've every played of Civ3 will the AI NOT settle every single tile. In a few large and huge maps, I've seen it 'stymied' at having to wait for the tech to sail over the deep blue, but as soon as it can... POP! Cities everywhere.

Civ3 just doesn't have the flexiability that it SHOULD, considering it's practically 5th generation of Civ, and one of it's ancestors DID have that flexibility. So, in the way I look at things, Civ3 is an actual SHAME. Firaxis should be ASHAMED to put their name on it. Especially when you are buying only a THIRD of the game you were promised (a piss poor editor and MP being a SEPERATE Pay for Patch in the future).

If the game was the first effort of a new shop, new talent? They'd have done very good. From the 'Game Gods'? It's dandruff off their arse. The lack of any REAL effort, the lack of enthiusiasm, the lack of them playing it, the lack of them ENJOYING it and tuning it to be even more fun, and the total lack of understanding of their own game and it's majority target audience ALL show. What's evolutionary? Boundries? Those were in SMAC. Diplomacy? All options taken from other games. Name ONE thing new. Even CULTURE isn't new to me. I've played other games featuring that. So, what's new? A graphic of Sid in the game going 'We need more money!'? I don't think it's an accident that he says it so OFTEN. (Be #1 Tech Leader. He will say that constantly then. Be #14 in a 16 set game. He won't say that).

Firaxis has lost it's talent. So, you can COUNT on them doing Civ4 and starting on it in about 3 years. And making some pathetic game in between. What will be new in Civ4? Nothing. But they may copy CtP3's graphics and GUI. And steel from EU3 and MoO3.

Looks like RC is right. Brian will get the last laugh I think...

Resource Consumer
15-01-2002, 00:54:38
I want this last post framed.

On two counts.

1. I agree with Darkstar - Firaxis tread water and claim innovation.

2. Darkstar agrees with me - whatever Brian does will have more go and integrity than this limp sack of shit.

:D

Shining1
15-01-2002, 01:50:29
Heh. Given Brian's status as an aging game god, there is nothing to gurantee that whatever he makes won't be just as tiresome and flawed as Sid's lastest effort.

Besides, Brian's new game is almost certainly a fast paced RTS. Not a genre I remember either of you supporting terribly enthusiastically:).

Darkstar
15-01-2002, 09:46:31
Humm... Well, it is easier to IMPROVE something, then come up with something new/on your own. When Brian LEFT, they said not to worry, as he wasn't very important and was in fact easily replaced. However, when he was named to lead Civ2, Microprose (Sid and others) said, not to worry, he was a Game God and it would show in his work, and if he REALLY needs to, he could go bug Sid. But he won't because he won't need to.

On a wild guess, I expect BHG to make a pretty standard fantasy RTS based around AoK or XCraft. It probably won't be anything to write home about as far as innovations or whatnot goes (and have sub-idiotic AI), but the value of a game is in its fun factor. Let's see what the Shining1 and other RTS enjoyers say then. ;)

Roland
15-01-2002, 10:08:04
"You say you had OPEN land for a long time Qweeg? Well, now, I believe you are just telling tales..."

On regent and monarch the AI slows down at around 15 cities. I haven't played through deity yet... I find the AI cheats too annoying. And they are all in the building part, so I'd have to play military, I assume. Yikes.

"In NO GAME I've every played of Civ3 will the AI NOT settle every single tile."

So you played deity only ?

"Civ3 just doesn't have the flexiability that it SHOULD"

Apart from the deity cheats ? I don't know, I usually play builder style. For me it's more an econ simulation than a military sim. Simcity on a global base, if you want. :D

"Especially when you are buying only a THIRD of the game you were promised (a piss poor editor and MP being a SEPERATE Pay for Patch in the future)."

Agreed.

Darkstar
15-01-2002, 10:51:37
Just my experiences with Civ3, Roland. And no, I don't play Diety exclusively. But I have noticed that whatever the level, the AI just likes to over build units, including settlers, and it sends out those settlers to new land whenever it thinks it is 'safe'. Otherwise, they wander through the empire on their way to new land, until interrupted by 'not safe to destination', at which point, they turn around and head for another corner of the empire.

Map type has a good bit to do with it. The AI city cancer DOES slow down, when the AI has over built military units. It just cannot AFFORD new ones. So if they support is tied up in strength, that empire won't spread 'as fast'. But I haven't seen many games where ALL AI empires were suffering from over building. They are virtually always warring SOMEWHERE, and getting rid of their extra units. At best, peace last only so long as 30% or so of free/reachable land is available. Although you CAN get them to declare peace by simply giving them the tech to sail the deep blue (if they do not have it, and there is plenty of free land out there).

I haven't tried this WITH the patch, but under 1.07, you could just be a bastard and MAKE peace by wiping out enemy cities. When that free land count globably reaches the magic percentage ALL civs declare peace, and race for the free land. When the magic number is reached LOCALLY, the AI in that local area will declare peace and race to settle the land.

That's what I've seen, playing the game.

Roland
15-01-2002, 11:23:01
"And no, I don't play Diety exclusively. But I have noticed that whatever the level, the AI just likes to over build units, including settlers, and it sends out those settlers to new land whenever it thinks it is 'safe'."

I've just finished a game on a huge world map with 13 civs, and large areas remained unsettled. That was on regent or monarch, though.

Interesting thing about the peace rule. I was wondering why the AI wasn't so aggressive. With the exception of the english, who, reduced to two pathetic cities by the persians, declared war on me...

On deity, it is AI cancer. I don't mind the building advantage, but producing settlers from size 1 cities is just a cheat.

Qweeg
15-01-2002, 12:46:28
You say you had OPEN land for a long time Qweeg? Well, now, I believe you are just telling tales... In NO GAME I've every played of Civ3 will the AI NOT settle every single tile.

No, i did not say that, I said (or meant) I have had games where two mighty nations face each-other across a single wide border (think the Russo-Chinese border for instance, or Canada-America) In SMAC, niether side would let such a border remain for long, its like dangling a piece of meat in front of a street-mutt. In Civ3 however, such borders may survive for quite along time- even the entire game, I know this becouse even trying to get two such nations to fight can be very difficult- or expensive, specially if they've both got nice little trades and you-scratch-my-back type deals going on.

>edited for actuall reading of the preceding posts.<

This should annoy you: Its like chess, the more you learn- the more you realise there is to learn.:D

I've noticed teeny civializations not showing proper respect for the larger Fuck-off-i'm a SuperPower type outfits as well Roland, but sometimes teeny civs go for mutual protection pacts to try an protect emselves only to get dragged into wars, or they do mercenary work in the anthromorphically-projected hope of being cut in for a few new cities or the enemy being crushed by the forces of their bigger allies before they actually get bashed.

I don't mind a little concept-theft in a game so long as the final product is fun to play, there's that saying about "good artists borrow, great artists steal" after all.

As for boring Vincent, may I suggest shooters or racers:) these nation-ruling games (what I call em anyway) tend to be a little slow.. in fact i'm surprised I have so much fun with em myself!

by the way RC: And Black and White is a great game also with which i have no complaints... I've created a big gay tiger that wanders thru the country side helping people. (actually i decided to think of the thing as a female, to excuse its glimmering pink coat, at least it still likes a good fight though! gets to express all that tigerly aggression) this allows me to continue to be bad and malicious at will.

Qweeg
15-01-2002, 12:55:07
Oh yeah- it occured to me that becouse i only anticipated this game (Civ3) about a month before it came out- maybe i just had'nt built it up as much and so wasn't as dissapointed, also all this talk of Brian and Sid >sheesh!< who cares, Flashpoint's a great game, i dunno the names of its initial designers, cept they work for Bohemia Interactive who cares, >shrugs< their jus anonymouse code-monkeys, these guys may be good at implementing ideas but nobody said their "Creatives", with a great film do you note the directors name, the writers name, the producers name or the studios name?

stop taking it so damn personally!:)

Resource Consumer
15-01-2002, 16:50:54
I think that if Brian and Sid slap their name over the games and allow people to call them "Game Gods" then they deserve all the stick they get.:D

Roland
15-01-2002, 17:00:41
"Sid Meier's Resource Consumer". Yes, much better.

Darkstar
15-01-2002, 23:29:12
Oh. Shared borders. Yes, I've seen that. In both Civ3 and SMAC. It depended on which factions shared that border.

If you really want to get an idea of how available land affects the AI attitude, start messing about on small pangeas. You'll see the answer to 'why small civs declare war on the Superpowers (including me and I've been being extra nice to them!).' Simple answer is: Not enough land.

When squeezed down, I think a counter gets set. And if they do not get a new CITY by the time that counter reaches zero, they declare war and attack. Regardless of tech/military standing. This is the old Jhihad code, dating back to Civ1 showing... when no more land is around, go to war to try and get some. I can TELL when those poor backwards Zulus, who have been my bestest trading buddies ever, and who I've helped repel invaders with, just cannot stand having not founded a NEW city, and are going to declare war on ME, as I'm their only neighbor.

Is that SimCivilization? That's like Canada declaring war on the US because the border hasn't changed in the last 200 years, and they've built all 3 of their possible city locations. In Civ3, Canada would be raging Holy War by now to get more land to settle. Germany would be thinking about it, France and Spain would be trying already, and India, Pakistan, and a great deal more would all be English property waging war with China and Russia. The Japanese would be wiped out, and US territory occassionally invaded by Russia, China, English, Spanish, and France.

Please, SimCivilization? Not even close. It's still world conquest game. But fool yourself if you want to... as long as it adds to your fun. As Civ3 needs LOADS of fun injection to be a SUPERIOR or CLASSIC. It's more then ever a 'shopping list for the ARMY production centers' then any previous Civ release. Queue this research, queue these items, build these forces, invade, conquer, game over. Rinse and repeat.

If I hadn't played SMAC? Maybe I'd think it was worthy of the Civilization name. 2 wasn't anything more then graphics facelift and a tweak to the old Civ game. I suppose looking at it PURELY on Civ 1-2-3, someone might be able to make a case. 3 is just another graphics facelift and an incomplete tweaking. Humm... I'll have to think about that. But regardless, it doesn't have that immersive, time draining fun that the previous versions had. Which tells me something is wrong with this. When CtP is an equal game and more ENJOYABLE then Civ3, that's my basis for for saying this game is sub Civ standards.

I honestly didn't expect much from Firaxis, but they still managed to fall short. Now, that's funny. Time for Firaxis to just fade away... queue close out music, roll credits...

Shining1
16-01-2002, 03:02:17
It occurs to me that a very good civ game could be made if the playing parameters tended to limit the player to 6 cities (or say 10 for extreme expansionists, one for extreme builders), had a smaller geographical area to focus on, and a slightly more limited timeline.

Add very good diplomacy and harsh rules for conquering cities, and you are in a good position.

Civ's main problem is the reliance on having huge numbers of cities to manage during a turn, and the really fun part of the game I found was generally at the start, when you had only 4-10 towns and a similar number of settlers to look after.

Roland
16-01-2002, 08:31:20
"Please, SimCivilization? Not even close. It's still world conquest game."

Thou speaketh in riddles. You mean a history sim ? For that I'll buy EU2. Or the simcity thing I mentioned ? In that case, I can play a builder game on regent and monarch. Only one major war where I had to clean up the Persians.

Had a little time for gameplay yesterday and started a deity game; after waiting for a reasonable starting place, I managed to get in 8 cities against the sprawling AI (this is really taken to a silly extreme). Now I can feel the love in the air... no idea whether I'll surivive in there or get overrun or assimilated....

"It occurs to me that a very good civ game could be made if the playing parameters tended to limit the player to 6 cities (or say 10 for extreme expansionists, one for extreme builders), had a smaller geographical area to focus on, and a slightly more limited timeline."

While the map editor is shit, the rules editor is ok. I think if you tweak with optimum nr of cities, unhappiness, improvement cost, settler cost, time for road building etc, this should be achievable.

Qweeg
16-01-2002, 14:56:44
I think that if Brian and Sid slap their name over the games and allow people to call them "Game Gods" then they deserve all the stick they get.

RC, i guess your right there, i never really paid much attention to their names or what they like their significant-life-partners to call em in bed though (big-boy, game-god, love-machine or Fibble-wibbles i really do care not a jot- its really nothing to do with me.. and "phew" may i add:) )

It took me a year before i finnally started calling the game "Alpha Centaury" by the more popular name of SMAC so... you know i think this may be why i never really learnt to gossip or compete more, a profound lack of interest in the accomplishments and relativities of others... probably why i'm still single too:( and why i never get to be included in peoples gangs:(, or bother to vote---

*major life-changing re-accessment of self and how i fit in amongst Society and all that*

Anyway all that bollocks aside- Shinning1 may i suggest creating maps with limited land-mass, to make this work all the civs will have to have their very own island all to themselves, or two civs on two continents (two each) for the emergance of super-powers later in the game to be assured (and the certainty of large scale land wars if you insist on em). That way you can control the number of cities each civ gets- I've done this and thuroughly enjoyed the results, but it produces a style of game that may not be to your tastes- depends how you work the map really.

When you do it that way- civs tend to gang up on the first outfit that shows signs of weakness in order to do a Post-Riech on it (that is invade and then divide the landmass amongst the invading coalitions) you can use huge stretches of mountain ranges too!:) to fill out land mass whilst still controlling available settling-space. Its always fun to force player and civs in general to have to use colonies to extract valuable gems etc from the heart of barbarian infested dark mountainous continents, i find anyway.. Beware English Adventurism!

Please, SimCivilization? Not even close. It's still world conquest game. But fool yourself if you want to... as long as it adds to your fun :confused: huh? I'm not sure what you mean there Mr Darkstar sir, but i've lost games despite having huge empires (larger then the winner had) and won games too from the other side so >shrug<

but yes- i am able to derive much fun from the game somehow.

Roland
16-01-2002, 15:18:57
"huh? I'm not sure what you mean there Mr Darkstar sir"

I'm glad I'm not the only one not getting this point.

Venom
16-01-2002, 15:23:51
I swear, Qweeg must be getting Firaxis kick backs.

Resource Consumer
16-01-2002, 15:38:41
It looks like he's the only one here who hasn't slept with Sid and Brian.:)

Greg W
16-01-2002, 20:19:04
Well, no surprises here, but I like it too. :D

I think that one thing that people seem to be missing here is that the biggest "improvement" per-se is in the AI. Civ 2 had a very easily beatable AI. Heck, I played the peaceful (hah) expansionistic type, and used to beat it on King pretty regularly, cos it just didn't know how to grow and compete in a tech race very well. Civ 3 on the other hand gives me a right royal tussle on the second easiest setting - partly because I am a bit rusty, but more-so because the AI has improved.

Also, I think that a lot of the disappointments stem from unfulfilled expectations. When Civ 3 was first announced, I headed over to 'Poly, and started to become active. Then I started reading all the shit they were proposing for Civ 3, and the fact that if all of it was put in that you'd need a cray supercomputer just to run the AI, turns would take about 5 hours - at 3000 BC no less, and it would become a hodge-podge collection of crappy ideas, all included for the sake of "realism" with very little thought for gameplay.

Why is it that when we pick up Civ 3, we think "why isn't this innovative enough"? Why isn't this enough different from Civ 2 to make me go "wow"? And why is is that we will happily pick up yet another RTS clone (pick almost any genre really), and laud it to the stars for far, far less innovation that Civ 3 shows?

BEcause we all fell in love with Civ 1/2/SMAC/etc, and we all started thinking that this would be "the next great game", with everything that Civ 2 had, added to which we'd have every feature from SMAC, wargames, every other TBS in existance (MoO for example), and a few borowed from RTS I am sure.

Nobody looks at this game on it's own merits, everyone says "this is the new Sid game, it must be evolutionary to be any good". And thus they feel let down. And yet, I have not talked to a single mate of mine yet who hasn't liked it, and none of them went in with any expectations of what would or wouldn't be in the game. They all see it as an evolution of Civ 2, and seeing as they all loved Civ 2, they all love this game. Not one of them has not been up until 3am on a worknight playing it.

It may not suit your "vision" of what Civ 3 should be, but many, many people like it, at least from those I have spoken to. It is enough like Civ 2 that you can easily pick it up and run with it, and yet it has enough differences to make it entertaining. And most importantly, unlike Civ 2 and SMAC, you can finally play peacefully for great swathes of time if you want to.

And yes, everyone should know by now that I am Sid and Brian's lovechild. :love:
:clueless:
:vom:

Darkstar
16-01-2002, 21:55:13
Actually, as I've said before, and I'll say AGAIN... I really didn't expect much from Civ3.

I'll say this again: As a game, it ranks with CtP.

Civ3 is simply a world conquest game. It's not a SimCivilization that some people like to toss about. The ONLY thing you can simulate is spreading army unit centers. As Armies of the World, you can swap around some stuff you NEED for your armies... Horses, Iron, Coal, Rubber, Uranium, etc. To keep the stupid peasants in their place (making more armies), you can distract them with a few luxuries (dye, furs, gems, wine, etc) and build them a few places they can go for entertainment (arenas, for example) and to pray for the health and well being of their children in your armies (temples, cathedrals). Research is focused around THE ARMY and its WAR MACHINE/WAR MACHINE SUPPORT.

The only thing that doesn't fall into that is the peaceful win... the Space Ship. Everything ELSE is about the WAR MACHINE or the WAR MACHINE SUPPORT.

You cannot simulate ANYTHING of history. The only thing HISTORICAL about the game is that it poses in a fantasy land while using historical names. Cleopatra, Julius, Roman Legion, Pikemen, Hoplites, etc.

As a WORLD CONQUEST GAME, it's not that great. In fact, the game has gone backwards in it's style. All Civ1 strategies are back. The Horseman rush, the land grab, etc.

Yeah, Civ3 was improved to not favor ICS. With it's AI Cancer. It's always had AI Cancer, and now it's hyper-active.

I've played loads of games in Civ1, Civ2, and SMAC where I've been able to have 0 wars. Yes, you CAN do it, but the games make you work at it unless you use special maps and tactics.

The fact that so many people use SPECIAL CUSTOMIZATIONS for their general play points not to an excellent design, but a lack of play and balancing in the first place to me. Just another 'we don't give a shit anymore' factor, IMAO.

Now, if you REALLY feel that's it's the best thing since sliced bread, hey, have fun at it. But there were people that though the original release of CtP, bugs and all, was the greatest game ever.

As far as brainless, worth all of $5 US WORLD CONQUEST GAMES go, yeah, it's OK. Same as CtP, and CtP2. But you can get Empire for free... the original WORLD conquest game.

And you can find Master of Magic out on some abandonware sites.

And Master of Orion (A conquer the flat map which has pre generated city spots dressed up as a Galaxy Conqueor Game) has the best overall 'I'm the human and can use real world HUMAN tactics, and get real word common responses from the AI' engine I can think of of any game I've ever played.

You want to be the love child of Brian and Sid, have fun. You like imagining you are whipping those peasants to build your barracks and granaries faster, then have fun. FUN is what matters... it's why we play the damned games in the first place.

For me, Civ3's fun factor is very slight. It's just not that good a game, for me and my tastes. I'm not trying to stop you. Just don't be surprised at me bashing on this product, as it's not WORTHY of the name Civilization. It's not a significant step forward as a WORLD CONQUEST GAME. It's a backwards step, in that OTHER playstyles that WERE available have been closed out, and it now is more in step with the average WORLD CONQUEST GAME. You can Hitler, you can Hitler, and you can Hitler. Wow. Oh, yeah... the Trade goodwill is over rated to help distract you from noticising you can only HITLER, so you can also do a Master of Orion Human Trade Victory. Oops. But they are adjusting that... you aren't SUPPOSED to have a peaceful option. (They adjusted it DOWN in the patch, and you can still do it, so expect them to keep adjusting it down).

Wow. What a spectacular game. You can CONQUER THE WORLD. Again. Using... Lightning Rushes and Hitler politics. Wow. Imagine a game like that. But you have to work HARD and CUSTOMIZE it to do anything else? Humm... could that be because it's a CONQUER THE WORLD game?

Sirius Black
17-01-2002, 01:36:12
Civ3 is simply a world conquest game.

But we keep telling you... it ISN'T!

Darkstar
17-01-2002, 05:47:21
ROTFLMAO! Yes it is.

RedFred
17-01-2002, 06:14:53
Despite being a supporter of the whole Civ franchise since the board game back in the 80s, I decided not to buy Civ3. But hey, if I see it in a delete bin for $9.99 in six months then I'll maybe spring for it.

My belief is that both Sid's and Brian's creative period is pretty much over. Sid for sure; maybe Brian will surprise me. If his RTS gets a good response from the folk around these parts, I'll buy.

I like the TBS idea, but I wish a few more up and coming games firms would give it a shot.

Roland
17-01-2002, 08:24:38
"Civ3 is simply a world conquest game. It's not a SimCivilization that some people like to toss about."

Matters of taste are one thing, but where do you get the idea that you can't play a peaceful game ? Likely I won't get back to my deity game before saturday, but as I've said, regent (or monarch), a huge world map, 12 french cities, one major defensive war, spaceship victory. Classic builder.

"The ONLY thing you can simulate is spreading army unit centers."

Bollocks. You could just turn this around from the builder angle. As simciv, your armies are a necessary evil and a sideshow. That you don't like the game, fine. But it's quite odd that you try to tell me I can't play sim.

"You cannot simulate ANYTHING of history."

My next game shall be the resurrection of the roman empire! :D

Resource Consumer
17-01-2002, 10:51:15
Originally posted by RedFred
Despite being a supporter of the whole Civ franchise since the board game back in the 80s, I decided not to buy Civ3. But hey, if I see it in a delete bin for $9.99 in six months then I'll maybe spring for it.

My belief is that both Sid's and Brian's creative period is pretty much over. Sid for sure; maybe Brian will surprise me. If his RTS gets a good response from the folk around these parts, I'll buy.

I like the TBS idea, but I wish a few more up and coming games firms would give it a shot.

At last - someone that agrees with me.:D

As I have said before - Sid is busted as a Game God. He's washed up in a cycle of endless self-parody. He probably even reads and believes his own press releases.

Brian, though, by making the break, by striking out and trying something different could at least redeem himself as a Game God. Either that or go down as a glorious failure at RTS.

So, a SimSid or an exploding Brian. I know which I'd prefer.:D

Funkodrom
17-01-2002, 12:16:03
Originally posted by Roland
My next game shall be the resurrection of the roman empire! :D

You are aiming to lose really early? ;)

Qweeg
17-01-2002, 13:04:51
I won't bother quoting his whole post, but i agree with what Greg "the cap" W sez, I suppose alot of it has to do with expectations and the lack of them.

I also agree with Roland, i find it very rewarding to be the or amongst the oldest cultures in the game, and my game style tends to favour cultural achievement. How to describe the thrill i get from having the oldest temples in the world, or the oldest wonders (sad i know, but one finds ones pleasures where one can). Just conquering cities doesn't stick anyway without a descent bit of history to back you up, not to mention aquiring cities through rich culture.

Here's a thing- I read Orson Scott Cards "Shadow of the Hegemon" recently and was surprised at how much it felt like the guy was writing about a Civ3 scenario! this isn't intended as some kind of an endorsment but... well, there's gotta be some kind of a point in there. erm...

Darkstar, you may be just getting war-mechanics from Civ3 but evidently a fair few people disagree with you. Perhaps you sound angry becouse you have not yet mastered the noble ways of "Game Zen" like we Civ3 Masters have:), relax, let go of your rage, breath in, breath out, become the master of your Civ3 gaming experience...

....OHMMM....

nah, i is only joking:D but i have to insist, beyond map-making i havent played a single rules-altered game, and yet all the wars fought in games i've had have been few and short and divided by long stretches of peace (or peaceful-war), building to non-military objectives and manouvering so... sorry, like Sirius Black sez- "we keep telling you... it ISN'T!" just a wargame.

Venom, so what, we all gotta make a livin don't we, I need a new car an Firaxis needs good PR;) this is America! ...actually this is the UK but the same principals apply. Your new legend is chillingly on point.

Roland
17-01-2002, 13:14:41
Originally posted by MikeH


You are aiming to lose really early? ;)

Nope, aiming for modern armour to beat back the vandals.

Sirius Black
17-01-2002, 23:01:15
My belief is that both Sid's and Brian's creative period is pretty much over.

I disagree. I think Sid is bored as Hell of the whole Civ/SMAC thing. It seems obvious, but Civ makes the cash to run the office. The last game he was actively involved with and interested in though (Gettysburg!), was a masterpiece! One of the best games I've ever played. I'm interested in SimGolf, but I REALLY want to see what is next up Sid's sleeve. I don't think he'll dissapoint if he is really interested in the project/

Resource Consumer
18-01-2002, 10:19:22
Originally posted by Sirius Black


....I'm interested in SimGolf.....

Imran, come on, I don't believe you really mean that.:D

Sirius Black
18-01-2002, 22:21:30
I do!

I mean when it becomes $20... of course.

Darkstar
19-01-2002, 02:21:58
Well, Brian quit Firaxis because he was bored with the whole TBS Conquer the World thing. Sid didn't do Civ2, because he was ALREADY bored of the whole TBS Conquer the World thing...

I might buy SimGolf when it's down in the $3 to $5 range. Just to see it.

Darkstar recognizes a CONQUER THE WORLD game when he sees it. If you want to delude yourself and say it's 'SimCivilization', go for it. But any understanding of history will correct your view.

If it was a SimCiv, then you could start the game with only your own people in the game. Try that with civ... and you will WIN a military conquest.

Cities are not places to house the masses while they go farm or mine. But that is what they are in Civ.

A city isn't limited to one FACTORY. Nor do you have to INSTRUCT your people, in anything less then a total thought control government, to BUILD marketplaces or banks. People will do that, just because.

Your people do not MIGRATE. Nor do anyone else.

In a SimCivilization game, then ANYONE could become a superpower. Not just a few select groups.

In a SimCivilization, your Civ would rise and FALL, naturally. Whether through changes in religious beliefs, natural shifts in the environment (an extended drought has wiped out a few old world super powers), new biological hazards brought back through exploration and trade... none of this happens. The ONLY way a nation falls in Civ3 is through the direct military action of another player. Period.

Here's one SMALL aspect to consider... When the nations of the world BEGAN to value gold, those nations with actual GOLD to be mined became very rich, powerful nations. Other nations had to WORK HARD to get gold. Gold was an EXTREMELY 'strategic' resource up until the 20th century, even for the US.

Another truly IMPORTANT resource... SALT. To have salt meant life... without it, death. It was SO important, Rome paid it's LEGIONS in Salt, and is where the world SALARY is derived from. Salt was worth more then an equal weight of GOLD throughout most of Man's history as an established world trader. It's only a relatively modern times that Salt isn't so valuable. But there are still places in the world today where nothing is as valuable as Salt.

You never deal with new political movements, or religious movements that threaten to split your nation. You never have anything to do but tell your units where to go, queue up new units for the current or next war. All research revolves around getting that next unit. Hospitals aren't for caring about the sick... they are so your bases can grow to max. Aqueducts are merely an item to unlock an army producer so it can have more 'workers' to make more money (to support more armies) and make armies and support structures FASTER.

You are welcome to lie to yourself. Just don't try lieing out loud about Civ3 being anything other then a WAR game in my hearing. It's no 'power broker', 'the committee', 'wheel and deal', 'poker', or 'Simulation of History or Civilization'. It's just a simple war game.

Shining1
19-01-2002, 02:45:41
The next thing up Sid's sleeve was supposed to be dinosaurs, which got cancelled due to being so amazingly, obviously crap that even the lead designer had to admit no-one would buy it.

Darkstar
19-01-2002, 07:47:35
It must have REALLY sucked for Sid's people to tell him 'it isn't much fun', and for him to admit it.

Vincent Fandango
19-01-2002, 10:21:50
Amazing. Gettysburg was his last genuine concept,an attempt to the RTS genre, somewhat different to all the Warcraft/C&C/AOE stuff, and it was interesting, because the building concept of the RTS is often very artificial (and it is even for TBS, like DS mentioned for Civ). It was "just" a battle simulation with interesting aspects. What I liked was the look and feel of the game, you really got the impression a battle was going on, and I liked the HQ mission briefings. The battle graphics were OK.

SMAC was just milking the a civ cash cow to get more money for Firaxis. Easy.

But Sim Golf is an old concept. It's like all the theme park/Sim stuff we've seen before. The graphics are incredible outdated, no 3D view (that would be interesting). The kind of graphics SMSG may have worked for the Sims, but for a golf game, where the landscape is important, it's ridiculous. Look at all the FPS and you know what I mean, you got the feeling of a REAL world (Op. Flashpoint amazed me). Why designing a golf course when it looks like Legoland?

The dinosaur disaster was puzzling me. Why did they announce it in the early stage (with a developer diary and all), and after a year or so they find out it was SHIT? Seems like Sid needs a supervisor to create something special (I remember the idea of a civil war game came up before Civ2 was released)

Sirius Black
19-01-2002, 18:53:56
Just don't try lieing out loud about Civ3 being anything other then a WAR game

*yawn* You like being wrong, eh?

If Civ was a war game, then how come I NEVER won a game by world conquest. Always by spaceship. In fact, I hardly ever conquered a civ outright. I only kept troops for defense and never attempted to conquer the world. And I had a blast. By your reckoning, I should have given the game up because it was a 'world conquest' game and I didn't play it that way.

Just because people disagree with your opinion doesn't mean you have to try to shove it down their throats.

It puzzles me that you think it can ONLY be a world conquest game or SimCivilization. Can't you see how wrong you are?

Darkstar
20-01-2002, 09:48:05
What I *see* is that you are shoved so far up Sid's ass, Imran, that you taste his burps.

The Civ3 is having an interesting effect on the Civ community. A good number of the Civ2 die hards do NOT care for Civ3. Not enough in it for them... same thing rehashed. Not as balanced, not as polished. A good number of Civ1 dated fans seem to be... disappointed. Interesting.

There is nothing in Civ3 that is 'simulating history or civilizations'. It is a war game. You never played war games that had optional win conditions? Never played scenarios where you can either pound the smitherins out of your opponents, OR finish the objective by occupying certain victory points for X amount of turns?

Your lack of grogness shows, Black. If you enjoy the game, fine. But a whore you pay for and only talk to is still a whore, even if you don't screw her. Civ is a World Conquest Game. It will remain that until the original design is TOSSED, and started over. It's about TERRITORY UNDER YOUR CONTROL, not CULTURAL ACHIEVEMENTS (such as your people being 'enlightened'). In Civ1, the space ship path was added as a way to avoid having to mop up the remnants of the other AI. Sid's story changes now and then, but that hasn't ever changed. Diplomatic victory is from SMAC... which was added so if you had the infrastructure, you didn't even have to waste your time going for a Space Ship victory... just declare yourself winner, and start the next game.

If you pay attention to what people that play Civ say the funnest part of the game is: The start. When you aren't sure where you are, and how you are doing. The second place (and it is a far distant second place) for fun is: Modern time when people are stomping on the AI with their tanks and bombers. I haven't heard very many say different YET.

You can say it's not a war game all you like, Black, but just because you MANAGE to get through a game without any major warfare doesn't prove your point. If you want to do that in Civ3, all you have to do is have THE BIGGEST FUCKING ARMY ON THE BLOCK, and bribe people. Lots. But you STILL have to have the Army. And support it. And keep getting that next unit... If you DO NOT, the AI will over run you.

One of the oldest cultures in the game? WHAT culture? Are your people the greatest musicians in the world? Fashion leaders? Innovator in sports? Host of the Olypimics? The humanitarians and good sumaritans of the world? You haven't a clue... All you know is: Your workers are 80% literate, your average family size is 2.3, you manufacturing capacity is 2nd in the world, you are the leader in pollution... but culture? Bah... This is your culture: temple, cathedrawl, arena, research facility, university, library. Where's the downtown? My capital city is the oldest surviving city in the world, but it has no real culture. Sure, you can be a democracy... and your people can be oligraphist. Just look at the Ancient Greeks. Women were property, and only Landed Men were able to vote. Hell, we had that in the 19th and 20th centuries...

There is NOTHING realistic or historical in the game. There is nothing in it that even comes close to anything in it, other then: Tanks are good for killing other things. Wow. But as far as a SimCivilization game goes... it's as close as Tiddley Winks.

If the US rolled in a few of it's armies into Canada and just took it over today, in Civ, everyone would go 'Oh well! Too bad Canada' and the Canadians would be happy US citizens in just a few years. Isn't that amazing? Yet, that isn't what would happen in reality. Your allies in Civ3 would be teamed RIGHT BACK UP WITH YOU... in reality, they'd be knocking on our door. We'd be the SERIOUS black sheep of the modern world... noone would sell us goods, or trade with us. The US citizens would be storming on their representatives doors... Congress would be looking to STRANGLE our president themselves... and our Army would most likely have to be FORCED to do it. Why? Because our neighbors to the North are our FRIENDS.

Just think about that one thing for a while...

Civ3 is just not anything but a simple war game. It hasn't the challenge in it that Go has... and it hasn't the balance in it of Chess. It hasn't even gotten up to matching Poker yet. I hope it might one day, but it will not be a Sid M design that does it. Sid thinks to small... they wouldn't be ALLOWED to change the game like that... it's a simple world conquest game. That's all it ever will be.

You know, I haven't heard one Civil War grog, or one Civil War fan, ever say nice things about Sid's Civil War battles. Although I do recall several picking on the fact that he used the CURRENT geography of the area, rather then the historical one, which makes a ton of difference in what and where you want to buy. I'm not a big fan of the Civil War era, so I never picked up the series (only saw it on sale at premium prices).

Greg W
20-01-2002, 21:25:26
Darkstar, you have to get over pointing out all the things that Civ3 isn't, and why they mean it isn't a "simCivilisation". I could point out about a bazillion things that make it not a wargame. By your logic, that means it isn't a wargame, right?

One thing you seem to fail to realise, is that Civ is not meant to be, nor ever will be a 100% truly accurate simulation of civilisation. Nobody here says that it is. No, it is never going to contain things like syphilis epidemics striking your culture (unless you want to look at cities built on flood plains or next to rivers). However, it is an abstract view of civilisation, a point which you seem to dismiss out of hand.

What are the main things to do in the game? You can:
- Explore - the world - don't remember any wargame forcing you to do this.
- Build - infrastructure, cities. Not just to manage your war machine, though that is definately a part of it, but also to manage your people's happiness, manage your trade surplus/deficit, manage your scientific output, manage the pupulation (via food and structures), manage the mineral capacity of the city, etc...
- Conquer - Yes, nobody doubts this is a part of the game, we just argue that it isn't the entire game.
- Diplomacy - yep, you have to manage your relations with other civs, unless playing ont he easiest level, pising off all your neighbours ain't gonna be a good thing to do.
- Trade - arguable as being a part of diplomacy, but trading for strategic resources can be very, very important.

You state that you can play a peaceful game, if you have the largest army, blah crap crap blah blah. Tell me then how I have played peaceful games almost all my Civ3 career, and rearely have a military ranked above about 2nd last on the scale.

Tell me how I can achieve cultural victories with barely a shot fired in anger?

Yes, you need to manage your military. History shows that every country in the world that has ever gotten anywhere has to at least have a military, and the fact that you cannot have a successful Civ without at least a token military does not make it a wargame, as much as your little fantasies would like to believe so. It may not be the be-all and end-all of "simCivilisation", but it sure as hell isn't purely a wargame. Case of point - try and win a game by building nothing other than military units or military structures. Unless you play on a single continent and go for a rush early, it can't be done. Try it on an archipelago, and see how well you go.

And I'll repeat it again - just because you want to close your eyes to the fact that there is so much more to it than a wargame, close your eyes to the fact that there are two ways of winning that do NOT involve being a warmonger (Culture and Spaceship), close your eyes to the fact that we all don't play in the way that you seem to think we must play, this does not make it a wargame.

Yes, it can be a wargame, but there are other ways to play it, and unlike Civ2, it can be done much more successfully.

That last line bears repeating, go back and re-read it again, just in case you missed the point.

If you don't like it, fine. If every damned person in the world doesn't like it, fine. Still doesn't make it a wargame, and never will, regardless of a million screaming fanatics proclaiming it so.

This has been another cleansing rant from BG. Phew. :D

Sirius Black
20-01-2002, 21:30:02
You are funny, DS. Civ isn't a war conquest game. You can live in your falacy ridden world, but I'm sorry, there are other ways to win the game. Sorry, if your mental capacity only allows you to play the game one single way. Not my fault.

If you pay attention to what people that play Civ say the funnest part of the game is: The start. When you aren't sure where you are, and how you are doing.

Uh.. the exploration... that's in wargames?

--

Listen to Greg, he knows what he's talking about.

Darkstar
21-01-2002, 07:39:03
Greg, people ARE calling it a SimCivilization. And it's NOT. That's my point. It is just a war game.

Sirius, I can TELL you've never played Empire... the game Civ was based/stolen from. You have to EXPLORE in that. In several variations that Sid and BRUCE credit, the extended Empires are credited as the DIRECT source. In those, you research, to get BETTER units, quell your populace, cut deals with your neighbors to team up and take down the larger, etc.

Seeing as Sid has publically stated he didn't do a DAMN thing for Civ1 but code what Bruce told him to do... and that Bruce admits that Civ is purely Empire, I really find how easily you are distracted by a pretty screen scary. Makes me wonder if you can chew gum and walk at the same time.

ANY sim Civ game would be more about feeding your people, distracting your people, and managing the problems of natural origin. Rather then: Build more Army production centers.

If you guys want to believe something different, have fun. But expect me to bitch slap you anytime you say something so blantantly false such as 'It's a sim!'. Nope. It's a simple war game.

So Imran and Greg think that StarCraft isn't a war game? You build and explore in that. How about MP Age Of Kings? You build, explore, and even have diplo. You don't spend the majority of your time in AoK dealing with your ARMY. You spend it with your VILLAGERS. Directing them. I guess that makes AoK a SimCivilization game as well then. Wow. What a concept!

Civ3 is just a wargame. A simple, conquer the world wargame. Maybe Civ100 will have had so many expansions and whistles added, that very little of the game is concerned with your War Machine and the War Machine Support, but I personally doubt it. The game tweaks more to allowing you to better EXPLOIT the AI, with a few tweaks to the AI's fighting algorithms.

Roland
21-01-2002, 10:07:04
DS:

"If it was a SimCiv, then you could start the game with only your own people in the game."

Contact with other civilizations is not reality ?

"Cities are not places to house the masses while they go farm or mine. But that is what they are in Civ."

True. So it is simplified.

"A city isn't limited to one FACTORY. Nor do you have to INSTRUCT your people, in anything less then a total thought control government, to BUILD marketplaces or banks."

True. I'd like to leave the micro management to the AI.

"Your people do not MIGRATE. Nor do anyone else."

True. I'd love to see cities with varying borders and functions - agrocity bringing food to megalopolis, for example.

"In a SimCivilization game, then ANYONE could become a superpower. Not just a few select groups."

Don't understand.

"The ONLY way a nation falls in Civ3 is through the direct military action of another player. Period."

That's the way how most civs fell.

"Here's one SMALL aspect to consider... When the nations of the world BEGAN to value gold, those nations with actual GOLD to be mined became very rich, powerful nations."

Not quite. It was a benefit, but also a problematic one. Spain fucked up its entire economy more than France in the 16th/17th century, with all that gold.

"Another truly IMPORTANT resource... SALT."

Would be nice, yes. Especially for me! :D

"to make more money (to support more armies) and make armies and support structures FASTER."

It's in the way that you use it.

"It's just a simple war game."

How do the simplifications and aberrations from reality make it a wargame ?

Roland
21-01-2002, 10:52:39
Civ3 has some other problems though.

I.I tried two deity games:

1. as the germans - I had no iron, no one had iron to trade, and the Zulus started to overrun me with swordmen. I doubt I'll survive this, but maybe I'll just play it out. Problem: strategic resources make it a total random outcome.

2. as the French - on an island. Not a freakin' chance to keep up with the AI.

So ond eity you're either on a big continent and get toasted, or isolated and get lost. For the builder it is a total random outcome, not a strategy game as far as I can tell so far.

II. Then I started my Roman simulation. Apart from the starting positions fuckup, this goes well. But 26 cities around the mediterranean make a corruption nightmare. With the palace in Rome and forbidden palace in Constantinopels, Egypt is out of control. With courthouse and police station, two shields out of 10-15 stay for production, same for trade. That's just silly. (need to try we-love day, or I have to go communist).

III. Another problem: bloatware. Sucks up resources, and what on earth are the packing into those sav-files ? All the graphics ?

Vincent Fandango
21-01-2002, 12:11:53
What I don't like is that you know you're going to win (or even lose) after the first quarter of playing time. After that it's just copying the city design, completing the infrastructure and mopping up the AE OR trying to survive as long as possible.

In fact the most interesting part is to find out about the starting situation, resources, enemies and where are the best city sites, because this is random. All the tech stuff is quite boring, because the tech tree is FIX, there's no way to find a certain tech without the certain prerequisite. I'd like to see some quantum leaps in tech, disscovering a advanced tech without doing all the boring stuff. Maybe the concept of unique science leaders would help.

After you installed a medium size Civ and found out about your opponents I usally stop playing after a while. At that point it becomes like finishing Rubik's Cube against time, when you know all movements to be made already. All this army building and warfaring is just annoying. If I want to do this I play a "real" war game like Panzer General, or even better AOK, because RTS is not so boring

Resource Consumer
21-01-2002, 12:57:37
This thread is just like old times on .owo.:D

Vincent Fandango
21-01-2002, 13:14:25
Laissez les bons temps rouler

Aredhran
21-01-2002, 13:38:16
mopping up the AE

:lol:

Roland
21-01-2002, 13:50:59
"What I don't like is that you know you're going to win (or even lose) after the first quarter of playing time. After that it's just copying the city design, completing the infrastructure and mopping up the AE OR trying to survive as long as possible."

One main problem is access to rubber when you need it. And DS talks about lack of realism...

Vincent Fandango
21-01-2002, 13:57:28
You mean Latex?

Funkodrom
21-01-2002, 13:58:35
Does that lead to population explosions?

Roland
21-01-2002, 14:03:39
Originally posted by Vincent Fandango
You mean Latex?

Vulgo "Gummi".

"Does that lead to population explosions?"

Apparantly in Civ3, the Welovetheking celebrations no longer contraceptives-free, even in democracy.....

Greg W
21-01-2002, 22:36:44
Darkstar, go back and re-read my post again, you haven't answered a single point I raised, other than pointing out that "people are calling it simCivilisation and it's not", and your rather trite statement "it's just a wargame".

Firstly, I am not calling it SimCivilisation, and I don't give a damn if 50 bazillion people want to call it SimCivilisation. What I am saying is that it is not just a wargame.

Hmm, if it is just a wargame (and are you a grognard DS, do you really know what a wargame is), please tell me how many wargames make you:
- build cities
- build infrastructure in cities
- manage your resource usage in your cities to ensure that you have enough food to keep your population growing
- manage your resources to ensure that you have enough trade to keep your budget in surplus
- manage your resources to ensure that you have enough minerals to keep your cities producing both infrastructure and units
- manage the building of your infrastructure in such a way as to keep your citizens happy (at least, not let them revolt)
- manage the building of your infrastructure in such a way as to keep your science at a reasonable level (to suit your aims for science)
- manage the building of your infrastructure in such a way as to keep your taxes sufficient to fund your treasury
- manage the people in your cities to ensure that you have adequate levels of happiness (entertainers)
- manage the people in your cities to ensure that you have adequate levels of taxes (taxmen)
- manage the people in your cities to ensure that you have adequate levels of science (researchers)
- manage your relations with other countries
- manage trade with other countries
- manage your access to special resources
- manage which technologies to research next
- have a means of "conquering" opposing cities without ever using a military unit
- have TWO ways of winning that do not require you to conquer (or at least beat the snot out of) every other country in the game

I could go on for another few pages I am sure, but I am getting bored myself, let alone boring anyone else.

DS, if you have ever played a wargame, you would realise that very few of them have any of those things that I mentioned, and none of them have all of them. This is what is commonly referred to as a "god" game. For reasons pointed out above, it is not a wargame. It is also not an RTS game, where the only way to win is to beat the snot out of the enemy in a very tired: gather resources, build bases and units, attack enemy type formula (though in many ways they do borrow from each other).

You state that in this game you have to win wilitarily, that the only way to beat the AI is to keep so far ahead in terms of military that they can't possibly defeat you. Pigs arse. I have finished games where I have had very few conflicts that could even come close to being termed "major". Trade properly, keep your rep clean, ally in the right places, and you can play peacefully without falling into your little stereotypical gameplan.

It can be done, even if you cannot seem to do it, and just because you cannot do it, does not mean it isn't possible. It's liks saying "I couldn't beat the last level of gamexx, therefore nobody can."

People are telling you they successfully play it without great military conflict, and you stick your head in the sand and say "no, it can't be done, respect my authoritah." If you're not going to listen, if you want to believe that your view of the world is the only view, go ahead. Just don't expect us to agree with you.

Sirius Black
22-01-2002, 05:50:37
Ditto Greg.

So Imran and Greg think that StarCraft isn't a war game? You build and explore in that.

No, it is a Real Time Strategy Game, not a wargame. Building up infrastructure and churning out military units make it an RTS rather than a wargame.

I don't make longer posts because this is getting highly repetitive, with DS insulting others because they don't want to bow down to his opinion.

Shining1
22-01-2002, 06:11:23
Leave Starcraft out of this...:mad:

As for Civ, I wouldn't consider it a wargame either. For me, a wargame is some crappy, overserious microdetail obsessed bollocks which starts with a mission statement like '1942, North Africa..." and which after ignoring all the mission text you enter the gamescreen, play hideously badly against the appalling interface and seemingly information free map for two minute before quitting out and deleting every last trace of it.

THAT'S a wargame:D.

Like all great arguements, this boils down to semantics and personal perceptions (something Darkstar has probably already stated somewhere in that mass of text). But you CAN play Civ as a glorified version of SimCity if you want. Hell, to tell the truth, you can play AoK and even Total Annihilation as glorified versions of SimCity (TA especially has a LOT of buildings). So even though DS likes to race through his Civ games in 90 minutes annihiliating everything, that's not the only way the game can be played.

That, and the last version I played was fun, interesting, and addictive. That's three things you will never find in a real Wargame:D.

Darkstar
22-01-2002, 11:46:18
Now, this is funny...

First off... I'm what I call a 'Darkside Builder'. Which means I run the tech tree, prioritize production, go for massive science and just enough money to cover my 'I have to have this NOW', and make use of concentrating my aggressive military to gain advantage to my side, even if the AI has tons of units... I do generally reach critical mass long before being able to sail the ocean deep, and make use of trade for my advantage and to carrot/stick the AI until I get bored... that's part of the game. Like getting DAP in SMAC. :D

Civ3 would be more fun if you could play a complete game to victory in 90 minutes, but it's interface is just too slow, as is it's maintence cycle, unit push, keeping an eye on your governors, implementing their shopping list, etc.

Greg... Now, you want to play symantics... That's my game. I do like the occasional war game, playing with the nuts and bolts. But I'm not a real grog. Used to be, but there just aren't enough in my area to play against, so I've found other interests to enjoy.

If you wish to claim that a bit of function creep has hidden the 'pure war game' from you, fine. I guess that's how *some* music fanatics wish to differentiate their band from being 'mainstream' because they added a guest flutist to the band. Mind you, the music is still the same 'mainstream' melody, bass, back beat, drum line, but they have a FLUTE! And sometimes a sample of a banjo on these two songs of their latest album! That's not mainstream is it? Yes, but it's only in the intro... BUT IT'S A BANJO! It's only in the intro... BUT NO MAINSTREAM WOULD DO THAT! Sound familiar? :D

The truth as I see it, a war game is about war, conquest, and control of territory. That's the main purpose of war, throughout history, although it's certainly been used for other things at times. Does that mean those few NOT about control and conquest were not wars? They are still called wars. The end result just wasn't generally have been considered worth it by todays 'modern strategist'.

Seeing as you are being a purist in your definition, I take it then you don't recognize a wide range of 'war games' as war games, because if you add one element to it, it's not a wargame. I suppose Risk and Supremecy are not 'war games' then. Let's see... Risk is a parlour game, and Supremecy is a Turn Based Strategy Game in your definition? (That's a wild guess.)

In the fact that Civ is so wrapped up in War Machine, with very little developed outside it, that the AI only pays attention to your military strength primarily and it's goodwill count secondarily, rather then based on an actual RELATIONSHIP and its HISTORY with you, the score and power bars are more influenced by TILES under your national claim then anything else... it is a war game. According to what you've said here Greg, you would not consider Master of Orion a war game. In it, after all, you research, design your own war vehicles, assign priorities, designate production, settle and TERRAFORM WORLDS! Wow! Even though the game is really about territory, control, and using your military to sieze control of territory that isn't yours, you CAN play the whole game without building a single WAR UNIT. You can achieve TOTAL VICTORY through trade, diplomacy, and covert ops. Not as easy, takes a bit more political squirming, but it can be done. It's not the focus nor the primary path of the game, merely an optional path, but it can be done. Let me guess... it's a turn based strategy game. Un huh... that would be VERY purist.... a very grognard view. Even though Master of Orion does indeed include the TACTICAL combat, the primary theatre of action is the Strategic. Well, I certainly would have to give a purist or hardliner that point. It is strategic focused, not tactical. That doesn't change the game from it's family though. But no grognard that loves his games would ever admit that Poker is a very fine war game... ;)

In the sense of Axis and Allies board game (gotta give Tom a surprise ;))? Afrikan Campaign? PanzerBlitz? Battle of the Bulge? Well, yes, you can do other things in Civ3, like establish NEW production facilities. Never heard of evolution? I can list several war games where you do indeed do your entire list. War games have CHANGED over time. Just because a Ford automobile has evolved since the Tin Lizzie has rolled off the line does not mean that the new model Fords are not automobiles. The basics are still their. A self propelled carriage that is powered by an internal power source and motivation is controlled by an onboard pilot.

Now, if you *are* a grog, then Civ3 would be... a light, half brained romp through world control and conquest set in a fantasy history, I suppose. So I'll give you that point. But that doesn't make it a SimCivilization, which was my primary point. It's heart and soul is that of a war game (strategic branch). It plays that way. It is designed that way. You can split that branch of war game off, and call it something else, but it's still got the same melody, same back beat, same bass line. The fact it has a few more 'guest' instruments that occasionally play along still doesn't magically transform it from it from a pig's ear to a silk purse.

Imran, I was insulting you in turn for insulting me. It's called Tit for Tat. Another element missing from Civ3...

The primary downfall of civilizations is not war. It's merely 'internal' rot and an external change that isn't adjusted, adaptable to by the civilization lost. A few have been raiding 'Vandals'... but the majority for the 'final straw' have been things like floods in the capital city, extended draughts, outbreak of flu, etc.

Roland
22-01-2002, 14:47:32
I still don't get your exclusive focus on the war side of the game, but so what...

Thing is that I'm actually getting bored quickly by the game. I would have hoped for a new economic model, but that's virtually not there. Small improvements, sure. Enjoyable, yes. But I guess I'll downgrade it from Civ 2.5 to 2.15....

"A few have been raiding 'Vandals'... but the majority for the 'final straw' have been things like floods in the capital city, extended draughts, outbreak of flu, etc."

Make a list ?

Vincent Fandango
22-01-2002, 15:35:01
I can't find any improvements, it's just a slowed down Civ2+SMAC.

Roland
22-01-2002, 15:43:27
Civ 2 + SMAC 0.25 - speed 0.1 = civ 2.15

Vincent Fandango
22-01-2002, 15:45:02
= Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Vincent Fandango
22-01-2002, 15:45:57
It would have been amusing if they had added + SimGolf to the formular

Roland
22-01-2002, 15:55:14
Make a custom civ "simgolfers".
Make a custom golfer "simciv".
Add dinosaurs.

Greg W
22-01-2002, 21:43:38
DS, I wasn't being pedantic/semantic about a single point that made Civ3 not a wargame, I was pointing to a plethora of points. Civ3 has very, very little in common with wargames, other than that you have military units, and you can fight wars/skirmishes with the enemy.

Whilst I may agree that a very important aim of the game is to control territory, I will argue that the only way to control that territory is militarily. Heard of conquest via Culture? I have (on a small map admittedly), settled my island and one near it, then managed to conquer the majority of two more islands without a shot ever being fired.

You may wish to try and call that merely a different form of war, I choose not to.

And yes, very similar to most of history, if you have a large empire, you need to keep a strong military, or you will be overrun. And the mere fact that you have a large empire will mean that you are forced to go to war on occasions. With careful management, that can, and has been, kept to a minimum. In particular, set the environment up the way you want it (archipelago), and you can play a very isolationistic (is that a word? :D) game with very few conflicts.

Yeah, I give you that war and conflict is a very integral part of the game, just liek it is a very integral part of history. However it is not the entire game, and there are other ways to play the game. Games could be played purely from a militaristic point of view, but even then, the management of cities, building of infrastructure, trading of resources, cultural acquisition and quite a few more things, make it much more than a wargame.

All that crap you went on about other games is pure fantasyland - I never said that Civ3 isn't a wargame for a single point only. Otherwise going by your points, every game would be in it's own category, as no two would ever be alike (RTS aside, cos we all know they're just clones :D).

Shining1
22-01-2002, 22:56:47
:shoot:
:shoot:
:shoot:
:shoot:
:shoot:

Mightytree
22-01-2002, 23:24:02
I can't find any improvements, it's just a slowed down Civ2+SMAC.

Ditto. Basically it's SMiv 2 with a few added features (culture, resources etc.) plus some major drawbacks (slooooooooooow etc.). Add to that that I find Civ-style TBS extremely zzzzzzzzzzz at the moment, but even if I wanted to play a game like that I'd go for Civ2 or SMAC since those two basically contain 95% of Civ3. I'm not going to spend 50 Euro on Civ 2.5.

Greg W
23-01-2002, 01:01:41
Originally posted by Shining1
:shoot:
:shoot:
:shoot:
:shoot:
:shoot: What, you honestly expected anything else from me? :D

Shining1
23-01-2002, 06:14:33
No, that was just my team of FU-Smilies rampaging through the middle of your base:lol:

Vincent Fandango
23-01-2002, 08:36:52
Originally posted by Mightytree

Add to that that I find Civ-style TBS extremely zzzzzzzzzzz at the moment Same here. I think Civ is now extremely nerdish, so it may replace the D&D function in the future.

Funkodrom
23-01-2002, 09:42:11
Check the Baldurs Gate thread out. :D

Roland
24-01-2002, 14:23:15
I have to say Civ3 wears out very quickly. I don't have much time to play it, but it's... uhm... well... lame.

Not just the long AI turns, but now I've run fully into the corruption bugfeature. Then I get an invasion of russian spearfighters in modern time - which is silly. and another micromanagement fest (until then, peace was held, though).

Maybe I'll edit around a bit, but maybe I'm just not interested... and maybe I'll play civ2 again.

Resource Consumer
24-01-2002, 15:48:51
Sid's curse strikes again

Roland
24-01-2002, 16:09:39
Yeah, it's really odd. Sometimes, it even has a destinct civ1 feel. Maybe because they put the palace and the replay in, and wonder movies out....

Woulsn't be bad, just one thing:

WHY IS THIS GAME EATING UP SHITLOADS OF SPACE AND SO FUCKING SLOW ???

Darkstar
25-01-2002, 08:01:36
Tsk tsk Greg...

You are the one playing semantics with 'this feature makes Civ something else'. You SHOULD stay consistant. Either the changing from the CORE set changes a game from a wargame, or it doesn't.

I've already SAID Civ has alternative paths. But they are just that... alternative. What is the game? How does the AI play? What is the basis of the game? In an analysis, what is truly going on? Tiles used and claimed is the base of the game. Tiles used generate trade, food, and production. Trade turns into income and research. Food feeds the heads in the city. Production is used to make facilities and units. Facilities are limited to research, bettering production, bettering gold, pacifying the public, making and improving unit quality. There is no CULTURE. There are very few special facilities (Wonders) to better PEACE. But there are plenty to help War or Improve Your War Machine.

Perhaps, in the next few passes, we will see facilities for improving Culture. Such as open forums, museums, art galleries, civic centers. But that's NOT in Civ3. Only the same facilities that have always been in the game, which now INCIDENTALLY, produce a bit of culture as a side effect. Not as their primary function.

Civ is a wargame. And I won't cut you slack in that unless you are consistant in what you call other games you've played.

Civ is closer now to a more Eastern thought of War (which isn't the standard Pure War thought in the West)... but it's still just a contest over control of territory primarily, and use of that territory secondary. I've seen a few statements from the Civ crew that tend to keep me thinking that's what they think the game is... as they've said there is still too MUCH goodwill from trading and peace generated so the AI is playing tame and peaceful. So this next patch, I expect will readjust the game towards more war and less peace for the average player (whatever the heck that might be). Now, why in the WORLD would they be toning down 'Peaceful play' and making it so their AI will war on you? I conclude it's not to make a game with more difficulty, but one with more war. They are consciously stressing WAR over PEACE. That is something that would only need to be done if the game is a war game...

Roland
25-01-2002, 09:09:47
Yeah great.

Yesterday I edited a "scenario" to get down that idiotic corruption a bit, and now it crashes upon start.

I think I'm done with the game.

DaShi
25-01-2002, 09:17:25
Sid's patented "None more turn syndrome."

:hmm:


Well, you get the point. :rolleyes:

Sirius Black
25-01-2002, 09:50:59
They are consciously stressing WAR over PEACE. That is something that would only need to be done if the game is a war game...

And when they made the game they consciously stressed PEACE over WAR. That is something that would only need to be done if the game was a peaceful builder game :p.

Sorry, your opinions aren't law.

Darkstar
25-01-2002, 11:16:55
I never said my opinions are Law, Imran.

Actually, they didn't have a clue. I've read them admiting that, starting from the top (Jeff Brigs) and working down to just code spitters. They just set the 'goodwill' factor at a guess. Since the game didn't get the PLAY BALANCE time it needed, it wasn't the game they thought it was. No biggie.

Then again, this is the team that said, 'We are CIV masters extraordinary! We have a few highly skilled Civ2 players that can even defeat Civ2 on Warlord in this team!' and 'ICS? What's that? Why would anyone do anything like that? Oh, that would never work.' and 'What do you mean, you can get a space ship victory by 1500? Isn't that impossible?'

Resource Consumer
25-01-2002, 11:30:28
I blame Christmas

Vincent Fandango
25-01-2002, 12:05:59
But it's game of the year.

Funkodrom
25-01-2002, 12:07:05
Which year? 1989?

Resource Consumer
25-01-2002, 12:11:46
I think the followers of Sid's Game God cult have just discovered Monotheism.

Roland
25-01-2002, 12:20:42
If it weren't
a) slow
b) loaded with the incorrectable corruption bugfeature

I'd like it.

So I'm disappointed.

I should have known when they came up with the dinosaurs. I thought "what the fuck?!?", but didn't connect the dots. Bummer.

Vincent Fandango
25-01-2002, 12:23:50
Why didn't they sell Civ2 as Civ3 with new wonder videos?

Resource Consumer
25-01-2002, 12:49:38
Interesting that they took them out - certainly is retrograde. Then a company that can't even be bothered to give you a decent case for the CD is clearly looking to cut costs all along the line.

Vincent Fandango
25-01-2002, 13:13:01
Furaxle is not napster, No stuff for free!

Well, MS don't even gives you a printed manual these days, and you got to pay 70 EUR for their games.

Vincent Fandango
25-01-2002, 13:14:07
And never forget:
Rewrite history with the greatest PC game of all-time. Sid Meier's Civilization III is the ultimate version of the original and definitive empire building game.

Roland
25-01-2002, 14:12:35
"Interesting that they took them out - certainly is retrograde."

It's a feature. The truefanloyaltybonusfeature, or so.
Just like the slow turns. The realismintimepassedfeature - 1 year game time takes 1 year real time.

Qweeg
26-01-2002, 14:16:33
Darkstar, having read your post following my last- i admit that their are alot of things that could be included in a game modelling the rise and fall of civilisations- and putting it in those terms- Civ3 is not very original at all, and yes there are plenty of things that are'nt repped in this game. It would be nice to see a game where many of these elements you mentioned are included, for one thing- a game where you control a series of power-structures (royal-families, political parties, corpos etc) within your civilisation, and have to contend with opponents within your borders as well as without. Thats one reason why i'm looking forward to Republic:TR so much. But as far as history-modeling games based on grids and movement points are concerened- and the limiting of industrial capacity and resources reperesented by having to serially build all the things that people build Anyway are concerened- Civ3 is fine by me. Its like as far as board games go, chess is loads of, er... "fun"- but if its modeling battlefields you want then could probably do much better with 3D graphics engines, clever physics algorythms and well-rendered maps based on satallite images, that is to say i think Civ3 does an alright job within its own format of grids and turns etc. So i guess this means your saying the whole Civ-format bores you- (i say as if this is the first time its been put in those words RC;) )okay fine, i can accept that so long as you can accept that within that format Civ3 is at least sufficient.

Roll on Republic, and having read Navs critique of the BattleCruiser game, roll on that too.

I did'nt bother to read the rest of the thread coz i am lazy and canny be bothered to catch op cap'n.

Shining1
26-01-2002, 23:37:20
Age of Empires 2 and MechWarrior4 all came with good manuals, which unlike most game companies stuff actually had published data about all the weapon/unit statistics in them.

Qweeg: Leave Greg, Paul, and Imran to fight over the Wargames thing. They aren't happy unless they have some aspect of the new Sid Meier game to beat someone up about:D

Btw, the Night Elves are finalised...:gasmaske:

Sirius Black
27-01-2002, 04:48:47
Qweeg: Leave Greg, Paul, and Imran to fight over the Wargames thing. They aren't happy unless they have some aspect of the new Sid Meier game to beat someone up about

:bash:

Roland
28-01-2002, 08:38:35
LOL!

I found the problem why the "scenario" crashed. I changed the colours for the Romans, and so they had the same colour as another civ in the game. Well, I can understand that the "editor" does accept such a crash set-up. Hell, I might even understand that the game crashes. But I fail to understand why it crashes your PC to a the "even ctrl-alt-del doesn't work" state. Must be something in that bloatware.

That said, I gave it another try and play my Roman game now. It's ok, but then... for CIV2 I had a ton of ideas how to play, for Civ3... well, I played all those ideas in Civ2.

Vincent Fandango
28-01-2002, 10:27:21
That's the point. I've played all that before

Roland
28-01-2002, 15:43:54
Originally posted by Vincent Fandango
That's the point. I've played all that before

Well I wouldn't mind replaying some ideas in Civ3 if it weren't so damn slow.

Btw, shouldn't you be Vincent Blueberry now ?

Darkstar
02-02-2002, 12:23:38
Qweeg, as a simple Conquer the World game goes, Civ3 isn't bad. I've SAID that, and I'll continue to say that. It's MY opinion. And in my opinion, it's on level with Call To Power.

I actually LOVE Conquer the World games. From Risk up to seriously detailed games. At this point, Imran is just bashing cause someone saying something less then 'Sid is GOD INCARNATE! Civ3 is the GREATEST AND MOST HOLY WORK EVER!'. Same as usual for him. Greg is trying to split hairs over what is a war game and what isn't, and not maintaining his own logic. As Shining has said, sometimes, I just cannot resist fighting the demons of stupidity when I find them. And sometimes I step down to just fighting the imps of inconsistancy. :D

My trouble with Civ3 is that it has flattened the play options, IMO. I'm more then happy to play a game with a small set of strategy paths available, so long as that's the game. Such as Risk. That has only a few flavors. Civ3 is closing paths... which I feel is the WRONG direction for the franchise to be moving in. The more ways you can play, the better. Look at MoO (The original)... it's an extremely simple Conquest game, and yet, it has more options and more flexibility in dealing with the Human Player then most Conquest games that followed after it. You can trade to victory, tech boom to victory, esponage to victory, drown them in numbers to victory, slash and burn to victory... with an extreme range of tactics that are employable below that.

I suppose I'd be HAPPIER about Civ3 if I felt it was moving more in the direct of a toy (more flexible), and less into a hardened archtypical shell of 'Civ'. We should be getting significant improvents/steps forward in each pass. Even if some of those additions turn out to be sub par or poorly worked (SMAC and it's Design Workshop interface is an example). I'm not looking for change for change's sake... just an actual moving forward of the franchise. MoO2 isn't the Supernova of fun that MoO was. But there are lots of different improvements in MoO2. Those changes between MoO1 and MoO2 that worked, have been incorporated into MoO3. Those variations that didn't? Back to the MoO1 or at least, back to close to the MoO1 version.

That's software. It advances in steps, and generally SMALL ones. Civ is enough of a success that we know there will be a Civ4. And a Civ5. And a Civ6... In my opinion, as a CUSTOMER of Civ3, it's not a worthy effort. When Civ2 came out, I wasn't exactly estatic over it for very long, but I did respect it. They had made changes from my beloved Civ1. Some good, some bad, some neutral. What's the sheet for Civ2->SMAC->Civ3 amount to? I know SOME die hards don't count SMAC, as it's SF, and they like fantasy history, but SMAC is the step the FRANCHISE and it's CODE went through from Civ2.

You can see SMAC's influence in Civ3. And I'm not just talking about the former/pod split. But what improvements in Civ3 aren't from SMAC? Cultural Assimilation and...? Oh yeah... the AI code actually got some work. Well, that is beneficial, but what ELSE? Seriously, what else? Formers take a City Head? So much of Civ3 is a move BACK compared to SMAC, and I'm NOT talking about being able to make your own unit. You couldn't do that in Civ1 or Civ2, so it being gone is 'in line' with your project line.

Just thought of it... resources. Now, you got to have material to build those buildings or units. Ok... project that forward... and see if that's a real BONUS to future Civs or not. I'll leave that up to the reader. (Hey, sometimes it WAS fun having to worry about it... but many times, it ruined an otherwise fun game for me, and anything ruining the FUN is bad, IMO. So it's a near balance thing...)

So... in Civ4... what elements from Civ3 do you WANT to have in Civ4? What elements from its earlier incarnations do you want brought back rather then keep the Civ3 form?

I'm not looking for the end all and be all out of Civ4. But for Sid and Friends to get any more bucks from me, they had better get Civ4 closer to the 'serious fun' line for my tastes. Doesn't mean they have to. They might decide to live off of the Fresh to Computer Games and give up on the 'New to Civ at Civ3' crowd. Eventually, the die hards and old timers will grow tired or get out of buying games seriously, so how long do you worry about carrying them? Not too long I'd think.

Greg W
04-02-2002, 20:38:03
Originally posted by Darkstar
Greg is trying to split hairs over what is a war game and what isn't, and not maintaining his own logic. As Shining has said, sometimes, I just cannot resist fighting the demons of stupidity when I find them. And sometimes I step down to just fighting the imps of inconsistancy. :DHuh? You come up with an argument (and a classification for a game), I disagree and tell you why, and yet I am splitting hairs and not maintaining logic?

I'm not going to argue any more - as pointed out elsewhere by myself, I will only argue so much, then I just throw my hands in the air, call the other person a raving lunatic, and give up. :p Fact is I (and others) manage to find other ways to play the game than a wargame. If you don't, fine. I couldn't be arsed fighting about it any more tho.

As for a few more things it has over Civ/Civ2 (if we're discounting SMAC as you seem to want to do):
- improved diplomacy options
- borders
- culture
- build queues
- city governors
- "different" espionage
- no zoc for many units
- technology "ages"
- workers/settlers split

Anyway, probably a bazillion other things there as well, some minor (workers/settlers split), some major (culture). And no, I am not going to even discuss how good or bad they are, whether they add to or detract from the utopia :rolleyes: that is the Civ franchise.

Oh, as for ways to win the game, in Civ2 you had:
- Conquest (military)
- Spaceships (tech)

Now you have those two plus:
- Culture

Personally, unless you're trying to argue that a Cultural victory isn't a viable way of winning and playing, I can't see in any way how it has lessened the options from Civ/Civ 2. Yeah, it lost one from SMAC (Planetary governor), but it gained one too.

Yeesh, now you got me arguing again. Bah, enough of this wasting my time, I'm outta here... :nervous:

Funkodrom
04-02-2002, 21:05:14
Oh god... if Greg and Darkstar start arguing we could be looking at whole series of posts that hit the character limit. ;)

Greg W
04-02-2002, 21:39:35
Originally posted by MikeH
Oh god... if Greg and Darkstar start arguing we could be looking at whole series of posts that hit the character limit. ;) http://www.plauder-smilies.de/flipa.gif

:D

On a lighter note...
http://www.plauder-smilies.de/argue.gif

Funkodrom
04-02-2002, 21:46:29
Nice smileys. :D

Darkstar
04-02-2002, 23:03:24
Ok Greg.

I came up with a criteria? No, I was digging for your criteria of what is or isn't a wargame. So I could pick on you for making an 'exception' for what you called Civ3.

You forgot about the UN Sec vote, Greg, as a victory condition. It's what the Supreme Leader victory of SMAC mutated into. I prefer SMAC's version myself.

Technology ages aren't 'new'. That's always been a part of Civ. They just changed the research tree so it's 4 cards... and you don't start on the next card up until finished with the current one. Minor mod really, and immaterial if you aren't the tech leader, as you can always just buy/trade tech.

Not that any of it matters one whit, either way Greg. But I have had more fun arguing and debating over Civ3 on this forum then I've had PLAYING Civ3. Now, that does matter to me. It's not like it's a complete waste as a game goes, but it is definately not a title that has maintained it's challenge or fun over it's evolution (from Civ2 to Civ3... I wouldn't realistically expect a game to maintain that pure time stealing fun that was Civ1). Not for me. If it has for you, hey, have fun and enjoy.

Sirius Black
05-02-2002, 02:31:22
Imran is just bashing cause someone saying something less then 'Sid is GOD INCARNATE! Civ3 is the GREATEST AND MOST HOLY WORK EVER!'

*Yawn* insults are the refuge of the loser.

I don't even play Civ3 anymore... or anytime after the first 2 weeks I got the game. It just didn't hold me. Care to make more ignorant statements?

MattHiggs
05-02-2002, 02:32:42
All men are bastards!

Shining1
05-02-2002, 02:57:46
We have got to get that arguing smilie:).

MattHiggs
05-02-2002, 03:10:37
:shoot: :bash:

Darkstar
05-02-2002, 08:01:50
Then what are you trying to argue about, Imran?

He's probably moved on to SimGolf. Sid's next masterpiece... ;)

The Mad Monk
05-02-2002, 10:17:58
Couple things I would like to see back in the Civ line:

Wonder Movies: I always looked forward to those little rewards in the middle of the game; when it was extended to sound bytes for researching a tech or building a base improvment for the first time in SMAC, I enjoyed that too. Where are all the litte rewards now?

Multiple Maps: only available in Test of Time, this was never given a fair shake. It would be nice to have back.

Programed Queues: something else from SMAC that would be nice to have here.

The High Council: occasionally, I would play a game deliberately bad just to see how mad I could make 'em.
"This is you, this is a clue, find a clue and RESEARCH TRADE!"

Social Engineering: This is just too cool to leave by the wayside.

Hit Points, Firepower, SMAC-style unit promotion: Is it really so much to ask?

More, as I think about it (customizing units was great, but I'm not sure how you could make it work).

Resource Consumer
05-02-2002, 15:39:12
Actually, I agree with a lot of that (especially that female advisor - forget which job she did).

Wow, CivIII makes me nostalgic for SMAC.

I wonder if that was Sid's secret idea.....

Qweeg
09-02-2002, 14:18:25
I have a theory (its a new one to add to my collection) some people buy games becouse they are followers of the works of the people (or Names) that designed them, some buy games becouse the game itself interests them- (the Name attached to it is considered incidental) and of course a subset of both groups who would'nt want to spend more then three fifths of a second thinking about any game with the word "Golf" in the title. Its this fundamental difference in outlook that leads people to talk past eachover.

here endeth my.. er... stream of semi-relevant text. Live long and play harder.

Vincent Fandango
09-02-2002, 14:52:30
I'm challenged to buy the Golf Game. Nbody has replied to the thread I started about playing the demo. Noone - except me - would play it (or buy it). And maybe except the Poly people. I would be cool.
Oh, umm, maybe not so cool ... (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=41479)

Vincent Fandango
09-02-2002, 14:53:43
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Multiple Maps: only available in Test of Time, this was never given a fair shake. It would be nice to have back.
Played it some weeks ago and that was really a nice feature.

Sirius Black
10-02-2002, 00:19:15
Originally posted by Darkstar
Then what are you trying to argue about, Imran?

About the nature of the Civ series. Hell, I got my money's worth.

He's probably moved on to SimGolf. Sid's next masterpiece... ;)

Not yet... but that IS next on my list. I played the demo and it is strangly addicting.... and Sid posts on the SimGolf forums :D.

C.G.B. Spender
10-02-2002, 15:17:19
SimGolf is not really good but far more funny than Civ3