Recycle Old Threads Drive Canceled!

[Xiodos]

I have to disagree Cyrian... The AI of CivIII is actually really quite good, and it doesnt cheat at all. (ok, im sure it does, but not in a large way)

Im gonna go out on a limb and publically disagree with Fyron tho... Civ ToT sucked. Man It sucked. It was awful. I own every Civ game, and every Civ-like game (MoM was good... But Colonization? Man, that game is STILL installed) CivIII was in my eyes a great game, but fell because of its predefined units, which Fyron has spent so much time argueing about.

In my opinion, SMAX was the be-all-end-all of 4X games. Actually, for me, its is the only game I need. You know how people always ask "If you were stuck on a desert island, what would you have?" Mine would be SMAX, although SEIV would be duking it out for the spot. The only other game even close to those 2 would be Jagged Alliance 2, and thats completly different.

So theres my total fanboy opinion... and remeber, Opinions are like noses... everyones got one, and they all smell.

Im gonna go play Colonization now...

[Fyron]

Why is Civ2 ToT a bad game? It had everything Civ2 Gold had, plus lots of cool new features that Sid's ego axed for Civ3.

The Civ3 AIs cheat as much as the AIs in other Civ games do, actually. Maybe even more so. And either way, Civ3 is still the worst thing to happen to Civ games ever...

[Xiodos]

You know what, I went back and checked, and turns out I was complaining about the wrong game. You're right Fyron, Civ ToT WAS a great game... I was talking about Call to Power. Sorry.

As for CivIII, I still stand by it. Certainly, it wasnt my favorite Civ game, but the worst? Not at all. The engine is very good and the graphics are crisp, and the political model is unparalled. As for the AI cheating, I can only assume you're talking about the differences between the difficulty levels. Just like SEIV, the higher difficultly you select, the more "Bonuses" the AI gets... but aside from that, there isnt any cheating. My stealth units stay hidden, comeplete with enemy units wandering by. I didnt see anything to say the AI cheats, and certainly nothing to the extent that you obviously believe it does.

[Fyron]

The AI in Civ3 cheats exactly as much as the AI in Civ2 does (plus more, because the AIs freely exchange their techs at low cost with each other, while charging you an arm and 2 legs).

What engine in Civ3? The graphics engine? Fah! Graphics do not make a game. In fact, graphics are the _least_ important factor of a game. Crisp units = irrelevant.

The political model of Civ3 is much weaker than in a fairly large number of games, actually. It is certainly not unparalleled. And a decent political model means little with rampantly cheating AI.

The difficulty level of the AI in SE4 does _not_ cause them to cheat. The bonus does, but the difficulty level does not. This is the crucial difference between SE4 AI and Civ AI: SE4's AI can be played on high difficulty levels without any bonuses given to it. In Civ, you have to suffer with rampant AI bonuses at higher difficulty levels.

But the AI cheating doesn't really matter. Civ and Civ2 were still very fun games with their rampant AI cheating. Civ3 is just a poorly designed game overall, and has many inescapable flaws (which I don't care to enumerate again at the moment), in addition to miserably failing to carry on the Civ legacy. Instead of building upon Civ2, it destroyed nearly all of the improvements that had been made in the Civ2 series (esp. the expansions). And then they have the gall to release the game in a rather early beta stage, and charge us for the rest of the game later on!

Civ3 represents the first Civ game that is all about flash over content. I certainly hope that if a Civ4 is ever made, it takes nothing from the abomination that is Civ3.

And overall, you haven't really given any reasons as to why Civ3 is a good game. Anything other than crisp graphics or political structure?

[ April 23, 2003, 09:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Xiodos]

I wasnt talking about the graphics engine. I was refering to the overall engine. But since Im fighting a loosing battle here, Im gonna respond to your particulars.

The AI in Civ3 cheats exactly as much as the AI in Civ2 does (plus more, because the AIs freely exchange their techs at low cost with each other, while charging you an arm and 2 legs).

I find this comment completly unfounded, for a number of reasons.
1) They simply do NOT charge you an arm and a leg for techs. Granted, quite a few times it may not be tech for tech trade, but if you think about it, many times this makes sense. Is gunpowder really worth Animal husbandary? To a military race, it isnt, and the AI takes note of that and deals witht the techs accordingly.
2) The idea that they basically give away their techs to other AIs is just a accusation. In the games of Civ3 that I have played (and that is a lot), the tech levels of the AIs is never uniform, it is always different. This in itself leads us to believe that they simply do not trade off their techs, but horde them like the user does. Again, some techs are fairly common to see, simply because they are such big important techs. But until you can prove this cheap theory to me, Im calling BS.

What engine in Civ3? The graphics engine? Fah! Graphics do not make a game. In fact, graphics are the _least_ important factor of a game. Crisp units = irrelevant.

Couldnt agree with you more.

The political model of Civ3 is much weaker than in a fairly large number of games, actually. It is certainly not unparalleled. And a decent political model means little with rampantly cheating AI.

Give the names of the games, then we'll talk. Unparalleled may have been a fanboy exageration, but it isnt as bad as you play it out to be. Simply looking at the options availible to you shows a decent amount of thought was put into it. YES, i know thats going to annoy you because it IS almost just eye canday, but it is important to note the equations used in the engine to control the demand and dealing the the AI does depending on the worth of certain items.

The difficulty level of the AI in SE4 does _not_ cause them to cheat. The bonus does, but the difficulty level does not.

This could be me simply getting myself mixed up. Yeah, it is me getting mixxed up. The Newbies guide set me straight, on high setting it simply uses all its ministers.

This is the crucial difference between SE4 AI and Civ AI: SE4's AI can be played on high difficulty levels without any bonuses given to it. In Civ, you have to suffer with rampant AI bonuses at higher difficulty levels.

See, the same can be done in Civ3... its called Regent Difficulty (I may be wrong on the exact name.. corret me if im wrong). At that level, the AI is on full steam with no bonuses. Thats high difficulty with NO bonuses. Just what you wanted. Put it up higher, and the AI gets the bonuses as well. Its JUST LIKE SEIV ONLY WITH A DIFFERENT SETUP/NAMING.

But the AI cheating doesn't really matter. Civ and Civ2 were still very fun games with their rampant AI cheating.

Things to note:
1) More wild accusations about AI cheating
2) Accurate note of the fact that AI cheating doesnt matter BECAUSE it is ultimatly controlable by the user, AND because that said user can still beat it.
3) Fyron's got one of those word Calendars, and today's seems to be "Rampant".

Civ3 is just a poorly designed game overall, and has many inescapable flaws (which I don't care to enumerate again at the moment)

You called me on my "Good Engine" comment, im calling you on this one.

in addition to miserably failing to carry on the Civ legacy. Instead of building upon Civ2, it destroyed nearly all of the improvements that had been made in the Civ2 series (esp. the expansions).

See, i just do not agree with this comment. First off, they carry on the Civ legacy simply by making this game. Does this game suck? No. Does it go completly backward? No. Is it Warcraft 2 with nations? No. Like it or not, it DOES carry on the Civ legacy.

Yes, I would have liked to see more improvements, Yes, they could have built on some things, but you make this look to be like Battlecruiser 3000AD when it is most certainly not. Most of the imporvements are still in the game, along with some orginal ones which i very much enjoy. And before you call me out on that comment, just think Culture.

And then they have the gall to release the game in a rather early beta stage, and charge us for the rest of the game later on!

No arguement here, it was dissapointing the amounts of patches and fixes needed, and the fact the PTW was sold as a seperate item when it SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE ORGINAL.

That does anger me...

Civ3 represents the first Civ game that is all about flash over content.

Civ3 does come off like that, I do agree, but if you look deeper, i think it shows its roots and you can see that it truely is a good game.

I certainly hope that if a Civ4 is ever made, it takes nothing from the abomination that is Civ3.

I do hope the Civ4 is radically different, if only for change.

And again, more slander against Civ3.

And overall, you haven't really given any reasons as to why Civ3 is a good game. Anything other than crisp graphics or political structure?

You're right, I didnt, and I hope this reply gives you some pause before you run rampant over me again.

Xio

[Fyron]

"I wasnt talking about the graphics engine. I was refering to the overall engine."

The overall engine is fairly poor by strategy game standards, actually.

"I find this comment completly unfounded, for a number of reasons.
1) They simply do NOT charge you an arm and a leg for techs. Granted, quite a few times it may not be tech for tech trade, but if you think about it, many times this makes sense. Is gunpowder really worth Animal husbandary? To a military race, it isnt, and the AI takes note of that and deals witht the techs accordingly."

Yes they do. 1000s of gold for techs is an arm and a leg. 4+ "new" techs for an obselete technology of little value other than a stepping stone is an arm and a leg. The first couple are cheap, but they get exponentially more expensive.

"2) The idea that they basically give away their techs to other AIs is just a accusation. In the games of Civ3 that I have played (and that is a lot), the tech levels of the AIs is never uniform, it is always different. This in itself leads us to believe that they simply do not trade off their techs, but horde them like the user does. Again, some techs are fairly common to see, simply because they are such big important techs. But until you can prove this cheap theory to me, Im calling BS."

Ok... the AIs that make some money are able to purchase techs from each other cheaply. The really crappy empires don't get much of this tech sharing, but the bigger ones do. Every game I have played directly supports my statement. The richer AIs get more techs than they could possibly research in a given time frame, without spending huge fortunes of money to buy them, as the player must do. This is not BS, it is what the AIs did in every game of Civ3 I played.

"Give the names of the games, then we'll talk. Unparalleled may have been a fanboy exageration, but it isnt as bad as you play it out to be. Simply looking at the options availible to you shows a decent amount of thought was put into it. YES, i know thats going to annoy you because it IS almost just eye canday, but it is important to note the equations used in the engine to control the demand and dealing the the AI does depending on the worth of certain items. "

Yes, and it all boils down to the AI always ripping you off by a huge margin, except sometimes in the very early stages of the game.

I am sure others can name many games with good political systems in them.

SE4 has as complex a diplomatic model (if not actually more complex). It just has poor AIs that don't use it well. GalCiv, MOO2, MOO3 all have better diplomatic/political models than Civ3. I am sure there are plenty of games I haven't played with equal to or better than systems than Civ3.

"See, the same can be done in Civ3... its called Regent Difficulty (I may be wrong on the exact name.. corret me if im wrong). At that level, the AI is on full steam with no bonuses. Thats high difficulty with NO bonuses. Just what you wanted. Put it up higher, and the AI gets the bonuses as well. Its JUST LIKE SEIV ONLY WITH A DIFFERENT SETUP/NAMING."

No, all levels except the lowest few have bonuses. The higher difficulty levels in Civ3 are difficulty + bonus. You can not choose one over the other. You have to take both. It is most certainly not like how SE4 handles it in any way.

"Things to note:
1) More wild accusations about AI cheating"

The AIs get bonuses to production based off of the difficulty level. They get bonuses to trade income. They get bonuses to trading with other AIs cause they don't rip each other off like they do humans. They get unseen bonuses to combat that make your units lose more often on higher difficulty levels. All of this is rampant cheating. They are in no way wild. They are based off of observations of the game mechanics.

"2) Accurate note of the fact that AI cheating doesnt matter BECAUSE it is ultimatly controlable by the user, AND because that said user can still beat it."

Only if you go with a low difficulty level, as level of cheating is directly intertwined with difficulty in Civ3.

"3) Fyron's got one of those word Calendars, and today's seems to be "Rampant"."

Well sorry if I have a large vocabulary...

"You called me on my "Good Engine" comment, im calling you on this one."

Go search for threads on Civ3 if you want to see them. There were a number of them... if you can't find them, I will find them for you tomorrow after I wake up.

"See, i just do not agree with this comment. First off, they carry on the Civ legacy simply by making this game. Does this game suck? No. Does it go completly backward? No. Is it Warcraft 2 with nations? No. Like it or not, it DOES carry on the Civ legacy."

No it doesn't. It is a deevolution of the Civ series from Civ 2 (and expansions), SMAC, etc. It stripped away all of the great new features of those games. This is why it does not carry on the Civ legacy.

"Yes, I would have liked to see more improvements, Yes, they could have built on some things, but you make this look to be like Battlecruiser 3000AD when it is most certainly not. Most of the imporvements are still in the game, along with some orginal ones which i very much enjoy. And before you call me out on that comment, just think Culture."

No, most of the improvements of Civ2 are not in the game. Firepower + Hit Points, Events, tons of unit abilities, etc.

The culture system of Civ3 is not an improvement...

"Civ3 does come off like that, I do agree, but if you look deeper, i think it shows its roots and you can see that it truely is a good game."

I tried to find the good in it for months. But, there was none to be found.

"And again, more slander against Civ3."

Well there are only bad things to say about Civ3. It is not deserving of praise.

"You're right, I didnt, and I hope this reply gives you some pause before you run rampant over me again."

I wasn't running rampant over you, just posting counter-statements.

Sleep time...

[Mephisto]

Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3.

[Hillbilly]

"Ge'em, Boots! 'E's got bees in thar!"
*loud, lengthy, and resonating snort

[/Hillbilly]

[ April 23, 2003, 13:26: Message edited by: Loser ]

[solops]

GalCIv is lots of fun.

Re: Civs....I heartily disliked SMAC. TOT was and is still fun, though the graphics were fuzzy compared to Civ II. Civ III PTW is the best of the lot. The more I play, the better it gets, especially with the Teturkhan mod.

Supernova beats them all. Even the incomplete beta really, really rocked.

[ April 23, 2003, 14:22: Message edited by: solops ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Keep it easy, boys. Oh, and... wrong thread, this one is about GalCiv and MoO3.

And Civ3.