MOO3 finished!

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is excellent value, $20 for a meal is an utter waste of money.

Wrong, $20 for a one day game is an utter waste of money.

---

Yup, I agree. If I'm going to buy something for $20 I want to enjoy it for awhile. $20 for a meal is high but I'd pay it if it was all you could eat steak.
Of course that's what Golden Coral is around for. You pay $10 but all you can eat buffet. And it includes all you can eat steak. You just go up to them tell them how you want it cooked and presto, steak all night. Excellent buy in that deal I say.

[ January 26, 2003, 17:08: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

[Suicide Junkie]

I expect no more than a week of play from a game that is a true classic, because that's all the time one can spend on a game if you wish to play more than one a month.

You must go through games like toilet paper!

If it is a true classic, you should be playing it until the CD/Floppy wears out
Not to the exclusion of everything else, of course, but Classics are the ones that keep you coming back!

[Dobian]

I agree with Couslee. I have SMAC, and it was my favorite TBS game until SE4 came along.

You may think the unit design in SMAC is flawed, but it's still fun. And Civ 3 doesn't even have unit design. SMAC also has a complex tech tree that keeps the late game intersting with all the facilities and units you can build. Contrast that to the tedious late game of Civ 3. Like SE4, factions in SMAC are unitque with their own strategies. Miriam plays different than Deirdre, who plays diferent than Morgan, etc. In Civ 3, the strategies among the diferent civs isn't as diverse. SMAC also has a complex government and social model that doesn't exist in Civ 3. What are there, four government systems in Civ 3?! In SMAC, you have abou a half dozen government types, and social and economic models to choose from. SMAC also lets you play the game how you want, just like SE4. You can be a reckless expansionist if you want. You can also be like Israel, a tiny little powerhouse. In Civ 3, you have to play every game the same, as an expansionist. Don't expand, and you're finished. Again, makes the games too similar and repetitive.

I don't totally dislike Civ 3. I give it kudos for its random resources concept, which is well implemented. I also like the idea of the cultural borders. Diplomacy is very well done, too. Too bad the AI cheats when it comes to tech trading, though (civs will trade with everyone else except you, unless you want to pay up the nose). The AI in Civ 3 is also more aggressive than in SMAC. Civs will actualy attack you with an *army* (especially those Persians!), and not just a few units, like in SMAC. I like the look and style of the game. It's okay. But SMAC is better, IMO.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
One crash is too often.

So you've never had an RCE from SE4?

---

Only once or twice from the demo, and from poorly written mods. Of course, I didn't get se4 until it was at like Version 1.41 or so.

Similarly, SE has improved over the years. I still play that too - obviously!

Unfortunately, Civ 3 still has most of the major balance problems and issues that it had when released. Sure, it doesn't crash as much anymore, but it is still a bad game.

...

Civ 3 has nothing to do with SMAC. It should not necessarily be SMAC 2, but more the Civ 3 it claims to be.

[ January 26, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Unfortunately, Civ 3 still has most of the major balance problems and issues that it had when released. Sure, it doesn't crash as much anymore, but it is still a bad game.

But what _are_ these balance problems? Everybody here complains about them, but nobody's mentioned what they are.

[Fyron]

Yes I did. They got rid of the hit points and fire power scheme. So, medieval musketmen can now defeat modern Tanks, a lot. That is completely absurd. If it happens once after playing for like 100 hours, that is fine, and assignable to an anomoly. But if it happens a lot, then there is a problem.

They killed off Civ 2 ToT, which was the best thing to happen to Civ since the original release of Civ 1. There were so many awesome advancements made in the genre with ToT that they dropped completely. Thanks to the egomaniac otherwise known as Sid Meier.

Bombardment hardly does enough to matter. I have watched 32 bombers bomb a city, and do a total of 1 point of damage. That, again, is absurd.

The AIs cheat way too much to be enjoyable. They trade their techs with each other really cheaply, so you have a very hard time keeping up, esp. at higher difficulty levels.

Shall I continue?

[Puke]

could someone please take a break from bickering over the CIV/SMAC serise and the failings of games that crash every 10-100 hours, and give me an SE4 player's perspective on MOO3?

lets face it. tons of people left se4 because they thought that even a year after its release, it was still in 'beta.' it has given me tons of RCEs from the unmodded game and integer overflow errors, until some very recent patches within the Last year. the strategic combat still has some problems, and the simulator is still useless. and frankly, i dont care if you spend $2 on a meal, or $50.

please put that aside for a second, and if anyone has the game, shell out some facts about the gameplay. how are the features? how is the combat, and economics, and politics? can it be played well multiplayer, without realtime connections? can games be saved so realtime games can be continued later? how is the AI, and minister control? how is the customization? how does it stack up to SE4?

I care only a little bit what reviewers say. I want to hear the real story from people here, because as SE4 players, your oppinions count more.