Love and Hate

[gregebowman]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Play Civ 2 (plus expansions, esp. ToT) and you will understand why Civ 3 is a POS. It is a major step backwards in the genre.

I have Civ 2 and a couple of expansion discs, Test of Time and Call to Power (couldn't play CTP2 at the time). They're all basically the same to me. Now they're may be differences in gameplay (I think CTP is the one where you could create space stations and underwater colonies), it's still the same basic game. Create a civilization, and try to keep it alive and growing for the next 6,000 years. I don't understand why some say CIV3 is a POS. As a matter of fact, I think I'll play a game tonight. This post has whetted my appetite again.

[Fyron]

CTP is NOT an expansion, it is a game made by a different company.

Civ 3 is a POS for many, many reasons. Far too many to list in completeness. Here are some: First off, they specifically cut BASIC features from Civ 2 (multiplayer, organization of data files, moddability, victory points/conditions, etc.) so that they could release 2 expansions "featuring" them. The fact that these features came about in Civ 2 expansions is irrelevant because they were new features at the time. It is completely inexcusable to NOT have these in the original Civ 3. The "expansions" for Civ 3 are worth about 5 dollars in new features (and that is being generous). Next, you have the fact that modding Civ 3 for years took hacking of the game files in order to work. The Scenario Editor was a complete POS. Now it is just a POS. It took many patches to get it to even be useable to mod the game! Next, they removed the text files for storing data!!! This was a HORRIBLE move. I think we can all agree that text files are the way to go for moddability. Furthermore, they nerfed espionage/sabotage. It is damned near impossible to do it more than a few times in Civ 3 unless you are so much larger and more powerful than the other empires that you can afford it. But by that time, it will not make a difference! Additionally, the AI cheats much more horrendously (especially in the diplomacy department) than in CIv 2. The AI empires regularly trade their technologies for ludicrously cheap amounts. Next, they removed the EVENTS system! Especially in ToT, it had so much potential for creating cool mods and scenarios! Furthermore, you have the VERY common experience of ridiculous combat results like a tank being defeated by PIKEMEN! (who are ONLY armed with pikes, maybe some swords; any explanations of "they have mines and such" are ludicrous apologetic justification for garbage game mechanics) At least you don't have the classic Civ situation of a warrior defeating a battleship! Additionally, they removed EVERYTHING good added in the ToT expansion. There were dozens of cool new abilities for units you could use. All are gone. The only thing they kept was the ability to assign settler abilities to units individually instead of all at once.

I would continue, but I must get to class now. Expect more in the near future!

[AMF]

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...

Originally posted by PvK:
SE4 Gold is definitely worth it. I miss the good parts of SE3 too, but SE4 Gold has plenty of stuff that make it worthwhile, especially if you play against a modded AI, and/or play with humans.

As for other good turn-based conquest games - see Dominions II!

PvK

[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).

[Maerlyn]

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]

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]

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]

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

[primitive]

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]

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.