Love and Hate

gregebowman · #1 November 24th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Well, I never really messed with any of the scenario or map editors, so I wouldn't know about that. I know CTP was made by another company, but it's still played basically the same, and it's still called Civilization. I guess my grammar could have been better in how I phrased it. Also, I know most of you are into multi-player, but it's not my bag, so again I wouldn't have noticed any differences. As far as espionage, it's something I might do every once in awhile, but not all of the time. You obviously have tried every fact of the game, while I just play the basic game. I don't doubt that in your opion, Civ3 is a POS. However, IMO, it's a great game worth playing (as I play it).

Maerlyn · #2 November 24th, 2003, 07:41 PM

I enjoid Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri very much. (it is close to Civ, since it has got the same developers) Beside the fact that it has got a very decent AI (anyone in here capable of beating 6 AI opponents with every race, even the weak ones? using setups like small planet and little water? I bet there is nobody!) I enjoid a few MP games too, but they took lots of time.

I didnt like CTP as it was just a weak choice combared to SMAC in my eyes.

But SEIV is far better than any other turn based strat game I know if you enjoy MP games.

(though the AI of SMAC style games as CIV and others tend to be stronger)

PvK · #3 November 24th, 2003, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alarikf:
What did SE3 have that SE4 does not? I played SE2 to death, but missed SE3 entirely since I was out of the country...but I am curious as to what I missed...

...

Some things I really like about SE3 that aren't in SE4:

* Much more detailed control of ship construction queues, being able to retrofit ships while they are under construction, and shift ships and units from one que to another, or foward and backward in the queues, ability to use a ship before it is finished building, ability to have multiple shipyards on a ship which build independently, etc.

* The ability to start the game with different tech levels pre-researched, and a very large resource Cache which could effectively let you start out with a developed empire which was different from your opponents' empires.

* Superb cross-referenced hypertext context-sensitive help system. You could pretty much get help on any display and link to a deep explanation of every part of the game.

* The ability to retreat from tactical combat - no "locked in the box of doom" SE4 tactical map.

* More control over the research queues - research all the techs at once, put 1% on the X tech, etc.

* Ability to control put planets on emergency production, at the cost of happiness (not just emergency construction, as in SEIV).

* Ability to move and re-size all of the windows.

* A better system for emissive armor effects.

* Better weapons balance.

* Better control of tactical strategies, in some cases, such as the ability to specify the amount of firepower to allocate to each target, so you don't have ALL your missile ships firing at the same enemy ship.

* Ability to stack ships in tactical combat.

* Construction had an element of time required, and not just resources used divided by resource use rate.

PvK

Fyron · #4 November 24th, 2003, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Well, I never really messed with any of the scenario or map editors, so I wouldn't know about that. I know CTP was made by another company, but it's still played basically the same, and it's still called Civilization. I guess my grammar could have been better in how I phrased it. Also, I know most of you are into multi-player, but it's not my bag, so again I wouldn't have noticed any differences. As far as espionage, it's something I might do every once in awhile, but not all of the time. You obviously have tried every fact of the game, while I just play the basic game. I don't doubt that in your opion, Civ3 is a POS. However, IMO, it's a great game worth playing (as I play it).

CTP being made by a different company necessarily means that the makers of Civ 3 could not include all of its unique features, as that would be copyright infringement.

Half of my list was about the basic game... the piss-poor combat mechanics and extreme AI cheating are some of the biggest game breakers.

narf poit chez BOOM · #5 November 25th, 2003, 12:47 AM

the thing that really hit me was no mini-map in the editer. it just smacked off unprofessionalism to me.

primitive · #6 November 25th, 2003, 01:55 AM

I just found that Civ3 did not live up to all the hype created before the release (like MOO3). It may be an OK game, but I found it boring. It added nothing that made the game more exciting/challenging/fun compared to Civ2. A game that was great for it's time but does not compare well to todays best games.

gregebowman · #7 November 25th, 2003, 04:57 AM

To tell you the truth, I just don't remember Civ2. It's been years since I've played it. Every time a new Version comes out, I'll switch and start playing that game. As a matter of fact, I don't even have Civ2 here at home. It must be in storage along with some of my other games. I did notice on Civ3 recently that my cavalry was getting defeated by swordsmen. I'll just keep playing Civ3 with the expansion sets until Civ4 comes out, then I'll switch again. Or, if as someone has suggested, this is the Last hurrah for the franchise, I'll keep playing this Version. As long as I get enjoyment out of it, I don't care about some of the flaws. If I get tired or frustrated, believe me, I got more than enough other games to keep me busy.