Civ III
I just don't get Civ III:
Like, is it me? Or is this game retarded? The lameness stems from how the computer doesn't have to run their socieities like you do. They never get revolts. They always allow neighboring countries to let their settlers and troops wander through their lands, but if you're in there for one turn and don't pay them cash they'll whig out on you and send tons of units through 3 countries just to get to your lands. The politics is ridiculous. There's no point talking to anyone. Even when I've defeated 20 Babolonians in a row, basically, and captured 3 cities they still act like they're winning the war.
And here's my main beef. I thought I'd gotten it all figured out. Play nice, get a good economy, then build and army and attack. So I do, I send upwards of 5 legionarys and pikemen to about four different cities on my Babolonian border. 3 fall, and become mine, the other resists with retardly powerful spearmen. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind giving the homeside an advantage in battles - but spearmen regulars have 3 hp and are '2' for defense. My legonarys have '3' for offense and usually are veterans or elites. Yet can they beat these idiot 2-turn-to-build spearmen? No. They just kind of... suck... because you're got no control over the battles once the numbers start getting crunched. I'd send 5 legonarys and they'd kill ONE spearman, then another one would just appear and the fort would still not be mine. This simply isn't mathmatically accurate. I don't know whether I accidentally built the 'Your-Units-Suck' building, or what, but my soldiers are pathetic compared to theirs, despite numerical supperiority (in both #'s and quality). And no, they aren't actually pikemen or musketeers - they're actually just spearmen.
Now this crap I can get over, because I'm running some thick production and can create legonarys in 5 cities within 3 turns, all on the borders. So I send more men in to choke the enemy with my blood, ala Russia in 1918. But the STUPIDEST thing about the game is that your people, halfway through a war, decied to revolt against you because they want peace.
Ok.
1) If you want to get something done, you've got to keep fighting until they are dead - otherwise without you having ANY possible chance of opposing it, the towns you've taken will depose their governor and you'll be back to square one. No extra towns - all the armies you had in those cities "disappeared."
2) I don't know why fighting miles away disrupts cities I've got on an island even farther away.
3) The SECOND city I built ever, Thrax, riots over war along with all the ones we've taken in battle. I can understand the concept of the townspeople getting upset at being occupied, but my Thacians are the core of my empire. They should be MINE, hand and foot.
4) We're talking 1460 a.d. here. NO ONE said "Give peace a chance." Fuck, no one barely says that NOW if you look around the world. Populaces don't riot because their country is in war for half a century. They'll have known nothing else! Or, for that period of history, their lifespan would've expired at around 50 years anyway. This isn't Vietnam. There aren't cameras. I mean, I'm not running a democracy here. This is not historically accurate and it just breaks up your fun of actually expanding.
5) How are you supposed to run a military campaign if the longer you go, the angrier and less productive your good wholesome cities get, and when you break for peace the other sides 'cultural prowess' (despite not having built SHIT in 100 years do to my blockades and their need for troops) simply takes back every city you've captured and destroys your men within it.
Like, how much time do you have to give the other country to power up while your citizens decide they can handle a war again? Shouldn't they only want peace if you're LOSING and lots of people are dying? What do they care that arrogant neighboring nations are being rampaged? It'll provide more land for them and make them happier.
I want to get stuff done while still in the past. I can't see myself enjoying the future and contemporary timeperiods of the game half as much as the olden days. But I'm afraid the best I could do before having industrialization is take out one neighbor - assuming his super-spearmen don't bitch out a win.
Civ 3 is fun, mostly in the production aspects of the game. When you get to how it fundamentally runs I think it's pretty ridiculous. Now, people are going to come on here and talk about how bazillions of people love it so it can't be that far off - but I suppose you've just got to buy into IT'S system for how things run, instead of using your head and realizing the game is heavy-handed.
It just seems like maybe they could've beta tested more than five times to get some A.I. going.
Or maybe I'm just coming too much from a Wacraft p.o.v. wherein everything's been beta tested to a tee and you've got control over whether your units defeat the computer or not.
posted by Malfarious J at 11:34 AM
6 Comments:
And by the way: I'm Rome.
So I'm supposed to be a militaristic culture!
Wait 'til said spearmen start killing your tanks. Then you'll really be having fun.
Ha-ha, yeah.
I realized one of my problems. Instead of occupying cities - RAZE THEM. And plant your own.
This is very illogical, but it's the only way to keep the populaces under control. The only issue is if the place has a wonder or not, if so - leave it until the end.
Unfortunately I've wasted too many years, and fear I may have to start it all up again. My 4th crack at the Romans.
From the Wikipedia: "Magazines, reviewers, and strategy game fans consistently hail Civilization III as one of the best strategy games ever made. Rich in accurate historical, diplomatic, military and socioeconomic elements, Civilization III is as educational as it is entertaining."
I would have to agree with the asessment, held by the majority of the gaming community, that Civ 3 was awesome, not "retarded" or "lame." For me, the awesomeness lies in the complexity of the game's model.
Military conquest makes up only one part of the game- when I used to play I would only really use the military for self defence. True success, even as a wannabe conquering power, requires more than just powerful armies; diplomacy, culture, economics, domestic infrastructure and governance are all important in the drive for hegemony.
The above post was by me, Collins.
Yeah, but you always go by what some magazine or internet site says as if it's the word passed down from above.
I just spent 15 minutes trying to find some entry into the Wikipedia that was complimentry of something crappy to make a point, but dammit, the site is just too good. It was right on the ball with everything else I looked up. :P
As you find out playing any NHL hockey program as well, leaving things up to the computer ALWAYS has flaws. In this case, the battles are dumb. Now I know the game can only be so big - and thus maybe can't account for good battle simulation - and maybe it comes out in the wash - but it's annoying because you always remember when your guys get BITCHED and forget when they kill in 3 strokes. Also, the computer decides that will rarely happen.
Now I've learned a few things. Always raze opponents cities, no matter what. Even if they have wonders, in my case here, it's too close to their capital - it'll never stay mine until I beat them entirely.
How can you say politics has anything to do with it? Maybe I'm not at an advanced stage because it's the year 1410 but all the politicians are 2D-mouthpieces that are basically useless until you want to clobber them.
Post a Comment
<< Home