|
Memberlist | Forum Rules | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Search Forums: | Click here to use Advanced Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
26-01-2005, 07:58 AM | #1 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Valleyfield, Canada
Posts: 4,892
|
... has to be my worse Civilization experience ever. I personally beleives that CIV III is the best of the three, but yet again the expantion (Conquest) is yet another stupid example of a gem turned into a piece of chalk by turning it into a milking cow.
A lot of "bonuses", new stupid rules and units been added without adding to the game. Worse, they actually remove to the game! The game AI seems to have been upgraded, which is good... But to compensate and (probably) to get the game harder, the code seems to have been reworked and "tweaks" added in for nothing. Such "tweak" include not being able to create an irrigation with 2 settlers even if you are industrious, barbarians who seems immune to terrain and obstacles or who simply stay put somewhere in the map instead of hunting down cities, the combat code which seems to have been rewitten so the computer always have the advantage and is really looking like a chance dice game... Really stupid changes. In my first game I just played, I retired because I was so depressed on how the game turned up that I did not even want to play anymore. I had access to Iron and Horses and was building a nice specialised army of veterans and elites (like I always do...). But the computer managed to beat me with an army of Archers... ARCHERS! Is there a more useless unit than some archers in Civilization??? Even the Warriors have a better use. Yet they seemed to be able to take down a Spearman who was fortified inside a walled town and behind a river without taking a single hit! That's almost mathematically impossible, yet they managed to do that often. I really feel like I wasted good money on something which should not have happened. |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 02:31 PM | #2 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ,
Posts: 5
|
Disagree mostly. IMO, the conquest expansion adds a lot to civ3.
Firstly, the AI DO NOT get any advantage in combat. The AI get production bonus in higher difficulties, and thus can field a larger army. But the computer do not get any combat bonus. Combat in civ3 depend quite abit on luck, as weaker units now have a higher change to win a stronger unit, due to the random number generator in civ3. I agree that this a a bad system, but this problem have been around since vanila civ3, so it is not the fault of the expansion. And the archer is NOT unless at all! If you look at the stats, it have a attack of 2, compared to the warrior attack of 1, both have the same defence and movement point of 1, with the archer having a defensive bombard , so the archer is acttually better than the warrior. Therefore, archer beating spearman is quite possible, and spearman have a defence of 2, same as the attack of archer. I advice you to play a few more games before giving up, possiblily playing at an easier difficulty. |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 02:48 PM | #3 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Afrim, Albania
Posts: 2,113
|
I own Civ III gold, and I really like it.
It is harder, with a lot of new ways of win and most imprtantly, AI learned to resign. (I hated when I have to look for some city with 1 setller ) As Rubberband said, archers have better attack unit then spearmans or warriorrs. |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 05:19 PM | #4 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Valleyfield, Canada
Posts: 4,892
|
I been playing Civilization since I'm 10, and I'm almost 24 here. I thank you for all your considerations both of you, but I think I know what I'm doing. Archers are useless. I had swordmen and horsemen in quantity by the time they attacked me with a horde of archers and they still managed to beat me. And his units were all regular and mine were all veterans, some of them were elites...
This is stupid. If attackers now have a better chance of winning because of a "random seed generator", then the game is an utter failure. No way around it. An archer have an attack rating of 2. A spearman have a defense rating of 2. In theory, an archer should win 1 time out of 2 against a spearman. The thing is, a fortified unit give it a bonus to defense (must be 50%, 2+1=3 defense). Fortifiying in town gives it another bonus (must be 25% in town, 3+0.75=3.75). Having a walled city add to that bonus (50%, 5.625 defense). Elite rating gives another defense bonus (must be 100% against a regular, we are over 10 defense now.). Catapults fire on attacking unit when they are in a city. And last but not the least, they attacked from the other side of a river which I think is also 50% defense bonus. Yet, a low life archer, alone, managed to kill several of my spearmen without even being hit once. Sorry, but 2 attack against over 10 defense and winning is utterly stupid. The other side of the scale happened often too. I attacked archers in open terrain and comonly got my swordmen being creamed by a lone archer, attack 3 against defense of 1.25 (terrain bonus)... |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 06:55 PM | #5 | ||
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Shella, Kenya
Posts: 1,578
|
Yep, the Civ3 combat engine is the single element in the game that manages to downgrade the entire game from an instant classic to a fun, playable game that has some problems.
They said Civ4 would be full 3D. I say keep your 3D and give us a good combat system. None of this has anything to do with Conquest btw. Conquest in my opinion was a very good addition to the game and gave us several things the origional lacked. In vanilla Civ3 you where very dependend on finding Iron and other resources in order to produce good units. In conquest you will still be hurt by not having those resources but it is no longer a life and death issue. Also unique unit upgrades. I hated being the Germans in vanilla Civ3. Sure they had a good unique unit but I had to scrap them all once I got modern armour as I could not upgrade them. Played a lot of Romans after that as their unique unit was a dead end anyway. And of course the thing you had all been waiting for came with conquest. The ability to play with The Dutch.
__________________
Rabyd Rev -- 2 Timothy 2:15 |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 06:57 PM | #6 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Shella, Kenya
Posts: 244
|
Hmm... I have plain old Vanilla Civ 3, so is it worth getting Conquests and/or Play The World or not?
|
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 07:03 PM | #7 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Valleyfield, Canada
Posts: 4,892
|
I have no idea what "vanilla" is. I never get user mod expentions. I would play the original and not play Conquest at all. Really not worth purchasing. The only reason I got it is because it was part of a 3 in 1 package which was (strangely) exactly the same price than the "gold" edition, which contained only the original and Play the World.
If you consider that they did not even include a multiplayer option in the original package and wanted the players to actually buy an "upgrade" for that part... Not worth purchasing. Actually I'm glad I had a pirated copy for so long. I got the best of the game, and would I knew that it was so bad I would not have purchased it in the first place. I'm also glad now that I noticed that I can play the original and/or Play the World without using Conquest. Tough I'm still to try Play the World to see what they screwed up in that version. |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 07:05 PM | #8 | ||
|
Could someone tell me, how can I run Civ III in 800x600 resolution mode? There must be a proper line to be written in *.ini file but I just don't remember how exactly this line should looks like...
__________________
"Paladin work is never done..." |
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 07:14 PM | #9 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Afrim, Albania
Posts: 2,113
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
26-01-2005, 07:21 PM | #10 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Shella, Kenya
Posts: 244
|
Heh, 'vanilla' just means 'plain'. As in, Civ III with no expansions.
It's from Magic: The Gathering, where it's used to describe a Creatutre (usually a 1/1) with nothing in the text box apart from flavour text (ie it has no abilities) |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Programming Language For A Complete And Utter Newbie? | Mighty Midget | Programming | 54 | 31-01-2007 03:17 AM |
Site With Complete Game Manuals | DOS-NOSTALGY | Gaming Zone | 2 | 24-02-2006 08:49 AM |
Heroes 3 Complete | Loki | Gaming Zone | 27 | 28-12-2004 01:37 PM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
||
  |