OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

Heya,
Just fired up Civ 3 Last night for the first time. I love the look and feel of it so far. I can see some differences, but I can also see a lot of similarities to 2.

You can really have a crowded world now that you can add up to something like 15 computer civs (not sure of the exact number).

After 2 hours of playing I can tell, it has no chance of knocking SE4 out of most played.
My biggest gripe with the Civ series has always been tech. Before 3, the tree was too narrow, and now, I am pretty sure the tree has been choked down, so that it expands and contracts as you progress through the different eras.

It's too early to give a final reading though. Just want to know what you think.

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

I've been thinking of buying it, but I've heard mixed reviews, I have both 1&2 and liked them both, do you tk 3 is worth getting
I'll keep cking this post for other reviews before I decide to get it or not.... tks for update on the game

just some ideas mac

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

So far I really like the race specific units, and the addition of resource requirements for producing some units/buildings.

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

got it two days ago and i like it a lot. I'd say buy it if you liked one and two. Gameplay is great. Ai is pretty smart even on easiest level. Tech tree is shrunk a little and there are no more wonder movies. Having a 16 civs in one gane is great. New resource and trade aspect adds a nice component to the game. As well as the culture rating. Makes individual cities more important. All in all much more realistic then the first two, music isn't that bad, graphics are pretty good. I'm gonna go play some more right now http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

Tks Chewy for the input, I was going to get it at first but then started reading some of the reviews both for and against, didn't know what to believe, thought I'd wait and see what those on the forum said before deciding.

just some ideas mac

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

I agree, the AI does some pretty cool things. My first game is on the easiest level, with max amount of civs. I started on what seems to be a narrow but long (north to south) continent. Germans to the north, French to the south. Their borders extend across the continent so I cannot expand any further.

I noticed that as I moved fighting units near to another civs borders, they would immediately mass a group of units just inside their border.

And I cannot get a fair trade out of these bastard AIs. They always want about 150% the value of what I am requesting.

Yes, if you still play 2 occasionally, get 3. Think of it as an expensive and worthy upgrade. If you have no real use for 2 anymore, then keep weighing the consequences. It is definitely (so far) not worse than its predecessors...question is, is it better?

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

ok now that i've played a few games i have a better feel for it. along with what i posted before here are some other things. The AI is a lot better than i thought. It expands so fast and builds up real quickly. It uses every diplomatic feature available effectively like making mutual protection pacts and embargoes and trades frequently. Very tough. And thats just on the easiest level. Plus it will build up a large army and attack all out if it declares war on you. You can sometimes catch em off guard but expect a huge retaliatory offensive in return unless of course you have lots of allies to attack simultaneously. Likewise, expect your enemies to grow very quickly as the AI will seek out allies to attack you. Very smart. Again this is all on the easiest level. As of right now my only gripe is that once you get into a game the turns can take a while to process. Of course i have been playing on a huge map with all 16 civs so thats part of the problem.

All in all I say get this game http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

How would you rate the game on a scale of 1 to 10?

Assuming that SEIV is a solid 10 http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

i dont think thats a fair rating system. C3 falls into a brutally over-done genre. it should be measured against games of the same type, such as civ 1, 2, call to power, SMAC, etc, etc, etc, ad nausium. while you can compare features and game play with those other titles, you also begin to realize that the biggest failing of C3, no matter how good it is, is that its basically more of the same.

that entire line needs a genre-breaking title, and they have not had one since the original civ.

in my oppinion, the same is true of RTS games, from dune-2 all the way through C&C-25 (or whatever the hell they are up to now). the 3D space RTS games (homeworld and friends) were neat for a while, until you realize that the gameplay is EXACTLY the same. harvest, build, kill, repeat.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

Puke's right, not the same kind of game, but i will say i haven't played se4 the past few days and thats a first in about 5 months http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

It's better than the call to powers. IMO has a better diplomatic model and the AI is a lot smarter. Also it has some cool features like culture, resources, and great leaders (which are hard to come buy). Anyway in this genre i give it a 9.5. Why the .5 lacking you ask. Well as puke said there is a lot of the same, but the aforementioned features make up for that. They probably could have added some more techs and wonders, but then it would have gotten to much like call to power II. Anyone else have an opinion? I've rambled enough http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

I tend to like it. I havn't played SE4 for a couple of days either.

My biggest gripes are smaller things. The way nukes (as far as I have noticed with the tacticals I used) don't seem to harm units at all. Though they do massive damage to the surrounding tiles.

The way smaller units still seem to have little enough trouble taking out obviously better units. I have had nuclear subs taken out by frigates and ironclads... That just isn't realistic at all.

The AI is the games strongest point. In my first game I wound up being responsible for WWI because of several failed spy operations on a neighboring empire (the aztecs).

To give a bit of a feel for the game I will do a small story of how it went. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

See the attachement. It got too large. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif


The way air units and cruise missiles work is also much better. As is the way that nukes are used and the level of customizability when making your world in the game.

I would say it's a good buy if you liked Civ2.

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 09 November 2001).]

Correction to statement above about nukes. They don't suck as much as I thought. I checked a saved game just before I launched the nuke again and about 9 out of the 20 cavalry where killed, while the rest seem to have taken some damage. Hard to tell since the least damaged goes to the top of the stack and he didn't take any damage it seems.

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 09 November 2001).]

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

"They don't suck as much as I thought. I checked a saved game just before I launched the nuke again and about 9 out of the 20 cavalry where killed, while the rest seem to have taken some damage."

Please tell me that wasn't horse-mounted calvary.

Phoenix-D

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

I would like to not tell you... but it was. :P Pre-industrial age. Better yet... they were killing my tanks.

I can understand some tank killing... but they did it consistently. I had a few that killed a tank without taking any damage at all.

Ok... so a quick run down on some negatives...

Armies are overrated. Stack 3 or 4 units together. They get 2 movement even if before they were all tanks with 3 movement... no special abilities. So an army of nothing but tanks doesn't get the blitz ability (multiple attacks per turn) It just makes the armies less usefull for anything but having lots of em for offense or having a few for defense.

Nukes piss me off. Submarines piss me off. They are both way too weak. A Battleship has a movement of 5. A normal sub has movement of 3. A nuclear sub has movement of 3.

The lower level units still easily defeat things they shouldn't. If I capture a city it destroys ALL or close to all city improvements. Took me a while to notice this since normally I massively bombarded first anyways and that destroyed tons of improvements... but after awhile I noticed that I wasn't bombing anymore and just taking with lotsa tanks and it still came to me with nothing but what my wonders created in all cities.

The customizability all seems to be through the editor they made for it. No easy to change text files or anything. This is good in a way. BUT it isn't at all as versatile as I had hoped. Lots of built in limits and problems and bugs with it. Hopefully some of that is fixed in patches. Even then though it still won't have anything close to the level of customization of SE4.
Maybe I am just spoiled.

Resources. Cool idea. But why don't tanks take iron to build? I know you use steel but iron is a part of steel. Come on. Too many resources in the end game require just a few resources. Some of them at least should continue on. Certainly saltpeter and horses I can see going out of fashion. But iron? The mined resource? I don't see us even today having gotten away from iron.

That was a big edit... I don't like multiple Posts I guess. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Still a good game. Just not the God Game that some have been making it out as. They just got carried away with it being CIV3!!!! FROM SID MEIER!!!!! And others don't like it because they felt let down by the same. OR just don't like that type of game. Like some of the reviews of other strategy games.

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 09 November 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 09 November 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 09 November 2001).]

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

I agree with cyrien. Some units should not be beating other units. It's just not plausible. I also agree that iron should remain important til the end, but hey no game is perfect. And your right it is not the greatest game of all time as some have said it will be, but it's still loads of fun to play.

Re: OT - Civ 3 anybody?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chewy027:
I agree with cyrien. Some units should not be beating other units. It's just not plausible. I also agree that iron should remain important til the end, but hey no game is perfect. And your right it is not the greatest game of all time as some have said it will be, but it's still loads of fun to play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to look at it as someone smuggled in some anti-tank weapons. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif



------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"