.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=9248)

Cyrien April 23rd, 2003 06:37 PM

OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I tend to agree with Fyron on his arguements against Civ3. Civ3 does have a few redeeming qualities that are good. Such as the way air units work. I enjoyed that... once they got it working. Also the infinite range of ICBM's was nice. Culture has potential but they didn't do enough with it. It seemed to just be thrown in for a new feature they needed. Same for the strategic resources.

But the bad just overwhelm it.
In order to get a game with difficulty and no cheating I had to use the editor and make that. Then I discovered the "built in" parts of the difficulty levels. I could edit existing levels but not make a new one. If I put it in the place of the lowest difficulty level the AI would NEVER EVER declare war against each other or me unless I started it off. If I moved it to a higher level slot the units got the inherent combat bonuses Fyron talked about which I couldn't change. Also the AI was far more likely to declare war on me at the drop of a dust particle than it was to declare war on fellow AI's at the drop of a bomb.

Political and diplomatic model? You make one mistake in Civ3 or PTW and the AI NEVER forgives you. Play for thousands of years and in the year 2050 AD they still remember when you betrayed the Greeks back in 3000 BC. The government types you can choose are all PC and incredibly similiar in type and fuction just covering the basics. Even Civ 2 had more government options that had more meaning. One thing I personally find horrible is the equating of Democracy with Capitalism and Communism with totally controlled gov economy. There are many nations in this world that refute those claims. The game takes Cold War political shouts and taunts and insults and makes it into the reality of making political AND economic choices all in one basket with TADA a total of 5 options, 6 if you count Anarchy.

Having tried to make my own mod with it I was terribly frustrated by the infexibility of the editor and the huge amounts of material that were hard coded.

Fyrons comments on AI tech trading are the exact same that I have found. You have your super power AI's that you can trade with at super costs and are more advanced than you almost always (early game) and then you have the retarded (economically and developmentally speaking) nations that STILL ask for super prices when trading even though you could kill them faster than swatting a mosquito! Try asking for the smallest most run down city in trade for ALL your gold ALL your techs and ALL your cities. The AI gets insulted! You are asking for one city in exchange for your ENTIRE empire and they REFUSE?!?!

Now I don't really like the Civ: CTP series but it did several things quite well. It had far more meaningfull government choices broken down into many Groups. Also units were more complex than simply a defense rating and an offense rating then compare the two and you have combat. How many times do you see medieval infantry kill mechanized infantry or modern armor? Even once is too much and you see it far more than just once. People say stuff well you have the nations like Vietnam and Afganistan beating modern powers like the US etc... yes... With Guerrila infantry! When was the Last time ANYONE used a mace or morning star or ARMORED cavalry or crossbows in warfare. The Last use of the crossbow in warfare was WWI. The others died out WAY before that. Why? Because you CAN'T win with those in modern warfare no matter how much you have.

The Civ3 unit system is far to simplistic is the problem. No naval only bombardment (torpedoes anyone) stealth system that is either 0 or 1 with nothing in between. Meaning of course that WWI era submarines were just as easy to detect as Los Angeles Class attack submarines with a sound signature equal to a school of feeding SHRIMP.
Everywhere you look in CIV3 things are limited and hardcoded and often poorly.

Back to the AI. Line up a huge number of units all along your border in forts with just a single opening that they can move through unopposed, put tons of artillery there with lots of attack units to take out anyone coming through. What does the AI do? Instead of trying to break through the line somewhere they ignore the line, including any weakspots in it and go straight for the empty open space and let you bombard and attack them to death... over and over and over...

How about pointless micromanagement... late game having to keep on going out and removing pollution then going into the cities that were affected and making sure they get that square back and productive so they don't starve... Oh yah. We have auto pollution removal. That is great. If you get pollution every turn. Which I don't. They don't keep the autoremove pollution order if there isn't any pollution that turn! So when pollution pops up I go and find where I put them. I take them off sentry I tell them to remove the pollution or just click auto remove they do it. Next turn I move them back so I can find them (no auto option for that!) and sentry them again or don't move them back and risk having to take several minutes to find them the next time pollution rears its ugly head and threatens to cause starvation in my cities.

How about the half-a#$#d implementation of strategic resources? What is strategic about these? Grab one oil area and all your nations needs for oil are met for all of time... or maybe one turn... you never know since they dissapear totally at random! And of course you can only hae X amount of them around at any given time. One dissapears and another appears. That would be like saying that Afganistan has the same demand for oil as the United States, both can have all their oil needs met by the oil fields in Texas, but not both at the same time, AND there is no way to tell how much oil is there and plan for when it will run out AND there are only 16 oil fields in the world FOREVER. You can only find more oil if some oil somewhere else in the world goes away! Oh... and of course the AI is more than willing to sell you some oil if it has extra... for several hundred gold per turn all you have in your treasury 2 strategic resources you have AND 3 luxury resources! And they are more than willing to buy it from you if you have it and they don't for a few hundred gold per turn all they have in their treasury and if you get lucky maybe a luxury resource. Yay...?

Yah. The AI trades totally fairly in every way... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Civ3 has its good points. But they are just too far and few between to overcome the bad points. And the fact that Civ3 looks at all the other Civ type games that came before it and pretends like they never existed and never did any of the stuff they did that was great and fun and just ignores all that throwing in super simplified systems and pretty graphics without removing any of the tedius and fun draining micromanagement.

Culture? BAH. That isn't culture in Civ3. That is just a half baked system for border expansion. Since when has culture had anything to do with a nations borders? China had great cultural inlfluence of Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and many other nations in that region... but they never had control of those nations politically for very long, and in several cases not at all, EVER. England has complete control of around half the world at one point. What did that have to do with culture? Did their borders in India have to do with culture? Did the United States break away from them because of poor culture? If culture influenced happiness and political influence... THAT I could understand. But your nations borders? And when was the Last time a part of one nation revolted and decided to join their neighbor because it had better culture, especially when the other nation has a military 10x the size of the "cultural" nation. When did any of the dark ages European nations go over to the Arab nations because they had better culture?
What does culture mean to KKK members? Try telling them of the wonders of African nation culture. Try and get several nations to agree on what "culture" is. Then try to rate nations on their "culture" and see how far you get. The age of something affecting it's cultural value? Please. Ask most people which nation has more culture, France or Egypt. I would be willing to bet that most people would say France. Why? The Pyramids are thousands of years older than the Eiffel Tower! Don't they know how much more culture the Egyptians have!

Civ3 has culture all right. But it is a totally artificial concept that has no bearing whatsoever on anything that it actually does in the game!

Feel free to like it yourself. As for me... I uninstalled it and PTW a month ago after trying almost a year of finding the good qualities in it that would overpower the bad...

Colonization was a great game, SMAX was a great game, Civ2 was a great game.

Civ3 is at best an OK game.

I tried several of the Civ3 mods as well. And while several of them made the game better than it was, they couldn't overcome the fundamental flaws in the game engine itself that no amount of modding can fix.

[ April 23, 2003, 17:57: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Loser April 23rd, 2003 07:29 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
TESTIFY!

General Woundwort April 24th, 2003 12:38 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrien:
Political and diplomatic model? You make one mistake in Civ3 or PTW and the AI NEVER forgives you. Play for thousands of years and in the year 2050 AD they still remember when you betrayed the Greeks back in 3000 BC.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OTOH, the way some places are in the world (like the Balkans), you could almost call this a realistic feature of the AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Fyron April 24th, 2003 12:44 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Esp. since the UK is still overly pissed at the USA for declaring independance from them and refuses to work with the US to this very day. Wait... that is not right. Why does Civ3 do that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Xiodos April 24th, 2003 03:40 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Evidently that post was directed at me...

I don't know... I'll be honest when I say that Civ3 wasnt my favorite, but I had to disagree with Fyron when he said that it was awful. I find that I cannot argue for Civ3 anymore, simply because I guess I know you're right in what you say. Civ3 had its problems, and was put out to soon without proper time allowed for development.

Nevertheless, I stand by it as a good/ok game. Certainly, it was a dissapointment, especially after SMAX, but its not the antichrist.

Fyron April 24th, 2003 08:19 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
There is a huge difference between saying a game is awful and saying it is the antichrist (an unfairly biased term anyways...). Civ 3 had 1 or 2 good features, and 30+ horrible ones. The bad greatly outweigh the good.

Xiodos April 24th, 2003 09:16 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
stop over analyzing everything I say.

I stand by my view that Civ3, while not a great game, is certainly a good game.

You obviosly have a different view.

oleg April 24th, 2003 04:23 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrien:
...Colonization was a great game, SMAX was a great game, Civ2 was a great game.

Civ3 is at best an OK game.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is it a coincidence all three have been made by Brian Reynolds with S.M. name on it for marketing purpose only ? Civ3 was the first game by S.M. after Brian left...

Xiodos April 24th, 2003 07:25 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I think oleg hit the nail on the head there...

Fyron April 24th, 2003 08:00 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by oleg:
Is it a coincidence all three have been made by Brian Reynolds with S.M. name on it for marketing purpose only ? Civ3 was the first game by S.M. after Brian left...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And this is exactly why SM needs to be forcibly retired. He has lost his ability to make good games.

Cyrien April 24th, 2003 08:17 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
SM never made good games. Brain Reynolds did. SM just put his name on them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

oleg April 24th, 2003 08:46 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrien:
SM never made good games. Brain Reynolds did. SM just put his name on them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just to "smooth" down my previous post - SM did make good games : Pirates (One of the best games ever IMHO) and Civ-1 (even better !). But then he either lost the plot or decided to live on royalties (the later would be my explanation) :{

Instar April 25th, 2003 12:40 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
When you talk about the stealth being either "1 or 0" I have to interject and say that I remember seeing modifiers in the the editor that allowed you to chnage how it worked.
I liked Civ3, but there are flaws that I hated.

Cyrien April 25th, 2003 12:50 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I never played pirates... but Civ1 was indeed a good game.

As for stealth. I remember trying to find ways to do that and I never saw anything other than "stealth" and "Detect stealth" etc. Unless you are talking about the setting that modifies how stealth fighters and bombers work? All that does is change the chance of intercepting one of those and it is a universal setting that affects all stealth aircraft. What I was talking about was more the invisible setting such as used by submarines etc. As far as I know Civ3 only ever allowed that and detecting that no settings for it.
I would love to be proved wrong.

Xiodos April 25th, 2003 03:32 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Pirates was great... Im not sure if Brian was on for Colonization, but that was a fantastic game as well.

As for Stealth, I think it was either "on" or "off" and then had sperate values for likely hood of detecting it... not sure, but Fyron will correct me on it later.

Fyron April 25th, 2003 07:45 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

As for Stealth, I think it was either "on" or "off" and then had sperate values for likely hood of detecting it... not sure, but Fyron will correct me on it later.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I stopped playing the game long before I ever developed stealth technology. It was too awful to play that long...

Shadarr April 25th, 2003 08:35 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I didn't realize Brian Reynolds left before Civ 3. That explains a lot. My main problem with it wasn't anything specific, I just seemed to get bogged down in the later stages, and I would lose interest. Not like Alpha Centaur where by the late game I would be rolling over people with my deathspheres and planet-bustering entire continents off the map.

Fyron April 25th, 2003 08:53 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Here is another problem with Civ3: Bombardment. How realistic is it that 30 bomber units (which would be 30 bomber wings) bombing a size 20 city with 10 defenders only manage to do 1 point of damage to a single unit, and nothing else? Keep in mind that these defenders are musketmen. In the real world, that level of bombardment would be enough to reduce Mexico City, New York, Beijing, Tokyo, or any other huge city with no air defense (as the cities I was bombarding had no units capable of fighting bombers) to rubble in no time flat.

Cyrien April 25th, 2003 09:00 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
My favorite part was when I engaged in nuclear warfare and used a nuke against a stack of 20 cavalry and the nuke killed about 5 of them.

Oh joy.

Shadarr April 25th, 2003 09:17 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

How realistic is it that 30 bomber units (which would be 30 bomber wings) bombing a size 20 city with 10 defenders only manage to do 1 point of damage to a single unit, and nothing else?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Too true. With that kind of firepower, you ought to be able to recreate the bombing of Dresden.

Plus the whole culture thing is stupid. Supposedly people are influenced by my culture, yet all the nations are so similar that everyone's culture is effectively the same. Are cities really going to defect from one democracy to another? It would've been really cool if there were actual cultures in the game which were different without being inferior. Maybe a techno-warrior society like the clans in Battletech, or a megacorporation like in Shadowrun. Instead, culture is just another number you have to increase.

The main flaw in Civ, though, is that it isn't fun. When I finish a game of SEIV I immediately start a new one. When I finish a game of Civ 3, if I ever have, I shelve the game for a couple months.

Cyrien April 25th, 2003 10:46 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
heh. That might explain why I played it longer than Fyron. I heavily modded the game so that bombers and the like where effective.

What finally killed it for me where the problems that couldn't be modded away.

Fyron April 26th, 2003 12:33 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
If a game needs extensive modding to be fun, then it isn't a very good game at all.

Cyrien April 26th, 2003 12:37 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I dunno. I have played a few games that had good engines but poor testing of certain aspects so that a little modding made them more fun to play.
For instace Emperor of the Fading Suns was a good game engine but poor execution of unit stats and resource ballancing etc in the actual game. Use on of the mods out for it and it becomes much better. Still with flaws but much better.

Unfortunatly I just couldn't find anything that could do that with some flaws in the bsic game engine of Civ3.

Cyrien April 26th, 2003 05:35 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Speaking of Brian Reynolds... anyone have thoughts on his new game?

http://www.microsoft.com/games/riseofnations/

Real time isn't really my thing...

raynor April 26th, 2003 10:18 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I've got a copy of the Beta 2, and the game is really, really awesome. So far, the game looks really, really good.

oleg April 26th, 2003 12:34 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Xiodos:
Pirates was great... Im not sure if Brian was on for Colonization, but that was a fantastic game as well.
...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Open my Colonization manual, read credits:

Game design: Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds (two more guys)
Programming: Brian Reynolds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Noble713 April 28th, 2003 08:09 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Research. Yes, AI-AI research trades are both common and low cost. So when you play you are effectively trying to out-tech not just individual nations but all of the most advanced ones. Yes, the AI can charge ridiculous amounts of money for technology. The best way to get around this is to get the AI really friendly to you through resource or tech trades, and the costs will drop considerably.

A strategy that I just recently learned is to set your research level at 0 or 10% for most of the game, and use the money you get to buy tech from the AI. I'm in the modern age now and I have a 700 gold surplus every turn (I play on a huge Earth map, and I had to MOD the corruption levels down to 30% of normal to not have my cities useless). There have been times where I've spent 6000 gold on several technologies in one turn. You jack up your research to 80-90% when there is something you really want (techs that give wonders or good military units). It also doesn't matter much if the AI is ahead of you by a few techs if you're a conqueror (like I am).

The only thing that I REALLY hate is the totally outrageous costs of almost all of the Diplomacy/Espionage missions. The costs are so high that the feature is almost useless. I can usually buy tech from the AI for less money than it would cost to steal it, and there is no guarantee that I'd succeed either.

[ April 28, 2003, 07:15: Message edited by: Noble713 ]

Fyron April 28th, 2003 08:17 AM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
That is the first thing that crossed my mind after realizing how horrendously the AIs cheat, and it is very very effective. Civ3's AI trading algorithms are just plain stupid anyways...

Shadarr April 28th, 2003 09:00 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
I expect Rise of Nations will be a good game, but I don't know if that's enough anymore. I got totally burned out on RTS games about a year ago. I have Kohan and Warrior Kings and Age of Mythology all waiting for some attention, but I just don't have any interest in playing them. The only one that entertained me for more than a day was Stronghold, because it wasn't a total C&C clone.

Aloofi April 28th, 2003 10:13 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shadarr:
The only one that entertained me for more than a day was Stronghold, because it wasn't a total C&C clone.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, me too. I also fell for Stronghold. Very nice sim, even though the men-at-arms could actually hack the walls down..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
If stronghold had limited to siege engines to bring the walls down it would have been a lot longer in my hard drive.

Shadarr April 28th, 2003 11:06 PM

Re: OT: Civ3 rant from MoO3 v GalCiv topic
 
That didn't bother me. I just lost interest when I got to a mission I couldn't get past. That coupled with the very limitted multiplayer killed it for me. My friend and I always play co-op, and there wasn't any.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.