Civilization 3

Michelangelo

Is pants. I really hate turn based strategy. I wish I knew this before I got it.

What do you think of it?

jabberwock

i agree. what is the whole point of it?

luckily i got it for nothing so I don't mind fcuking it in the bin.

Woden

hmm i like civ 3, i didn't pay for it though either and i had no manual which made it a bit of bitch to figure out but its good i think

bizmark

Originally posted by Michelangelo
Is pants. I really hate turn based strategy. I wish I knew this before I got it.

What do you think of it?

you didnt know civ games where turn based strategy..................what rock have you been liveing under for the last 10 years ?

I love civ but if your more into mindless fps you wont like the game

Michelangelo

Originally posted by bizmark
you didnt know civ games where turn based strategy..................what rock have you been liveing under for the last 10 years ?

I love civ but if your more into mindless fps you wont like the game

Sorry I have not been playing games the last ten years, let alone 3 years.

I like Age of Empires 2 and was hoping this would be the same but it is not. I move, you move. And the worst is it only allows me to move one box at a time. It seriously sucks. I hate it.

PS: I got it for free too and the update without manual.

bizmark

its one of the best games ever made ........

but i guess its not some peoples cup of tea

Why not try command and conqure or something like that ?

Michelangelo

Originally posted by bizmark
its one of the best games ever made ........

but i guess its not some peoples cup of tea

Why not try command and conqure or something like that ?

I LOVED C&C generals. I actually finished that game(not something I do as I get bored of most games easily).

Is the update to it worth getting do you know?

sceptre

Originally posted by Michelangelo
And the worst is it only allows me to move one box at a time.

You need to build yourself some roads. Or get some chariots. Or stop building your cities in mountain ranges (don't your settlers get movement of more than one square?)

It's all in the manual. And if you got a dodgy copy they really should have included a pdf of the manual.

bizmark

ment to be great dont have it though

Your into RTS but not TBS ? .......give civ 3 more time it can be confuseing when you first start out but if you give it a few days you will learn enough to make it worth while

Then before long you will have a massive country will 100+ citys and a massive army so you can push around the weaker countrys.......Pure joy

Pepe LeFrits

Started playing Civ3 again recently, it's a fantastic game. hmm, who will i conquer next, the French or the Germans? decisions decisions!

... and the difference in time taken to transport units to the front having just built railroads everywhere is immense. Steam Power is THE most important tech advance in the game!

amp

Civ 3 has sucked days and even weeks away from my life. It's like crack-cocaine to me, I had to uninstall it and hide the cd just so I wouldn't starve to death.

Michelangelo

I wish I had that addiction you guys have for it. I really want to get stuck into a good strategy game. And the fact I am thinking about going all the way back to the ancient yet brilliant AOE 2 says it all really.

BKtje

i have spent more time playing civ3 then any other offline pc game. Has some annoying bugs in it (especially the Play the world expansion) but it is one of the best games ever conceived.

rts and tbs games are very different. Not sure why u thought ud like civ3 after playing aoe and yes Zero Hour is very worth getting. I also suggest u try it online tis good crack.

Atreides

Originally posted by amp
Civ 3 has sucked days and even weeks away from my life. It's like crack-cocaine to me, I had to uninstall it and hide the cd just so I wouldn't starve to death.

I had to put my CD in the microwave and destroy it to regain my life again. God I was so addicted to that game it wasn't even funny, I can still remember my defeat of the americans and then germans two years on, god it was brilliant.

The new game on the other hand sucks, civilization galactic.

Woden

Originally posted by Michelangelo


I like Age of Empires 2 and was hoping this would be the same but it is not. I move, you move. And the worst is it only allows me to move one box at a time. It seriously sucks. I hate it.

as a contrast i think aoe2 is fairly crap and don't particularly like those rts games in which you have a large number of resources to manage and go through those tech periods, too much micromanagement imo, limited troop numbers, attrition and all that.

i much prefare c and c just feel its more fun and has just one goal build an army capable of kicking the crap out of your opponent. the expansion pack for generals is worth getting brings quite a bit to the game i think

Sand

Civ 3 wasnt really the advance Id have hoped it would be - Call To Power already did the Civ 2 Update, and a lot of concepts and ideas from the truly excellent Alpha Centuari were ignored ( Social Engineering for gods sake !). Its still a good game though - horses for courses I guess. I for example cant stand those tank rush RTS since C&C and Dune (they at least were original). Im sure theyre good games though.

The new game on the other hand sucks, civilization galactic.

Do you mean Galactic Civillisations? That looks fairly tame graphically but its AI is extremely challenging compared to the AI you encounter in Civ 3 for example. Id argue its a better game becuse of that, to me anyway.

ykt0di9url7bc3

i loved Civ3... i love civ 1 even more

Atreides

Thats the one, don't get me wrong, its a good game, but kinda felt pointless/.

MrPinK

Galactic Civilizations has nothing to do with the Civilzation series at all. It's a remake of a 1994 game that came out for OS/2. It's AI is extremely well done though, which is something all other turn-based stategy games should copy in future. Usually when you hit end turn then the computer has about 1 or 2 seconds to decide all the AI players' moves. GalCiv however is multithreaded, so the computer can be calculating the AI moves in the background while you're still taking your turn. Having a lot more than a couple of seconds to take it's turn means the AI can be much more complex. Another side effect of this is that you don't have to wait when you hit end turn, the AI moves will have already been decided.

The Civ series still out does every other game in it's genre though.

Imposter

Civ 3 is brilliant. Haven't played it since i got CM03/04 but will get back to it soon. The play the world can be quite annoying especially the dimplomacy screen but some of the new Civs in it are quite good.

As for aoe2 I find it boring as it basically becomes a race to see who can gather resources the quickest. At least with Civ 3 you have to at least consider using different tactics.

M@lice

I loved the 1st two civ games! should i get the third? Is it better than say civ 2? or a diff experiance all together?

kencleary

Nah to my mind, despite the advances like Culture, its a worse game than Civ2. Like a previous poster said they dropped the best ideas from Alpha Centauri, it also lacked the polish of Civ2 - No more wonder movies or advisory council. The Diplomacy and Ai aren't great, i hate the new naval & air combat and a lot of the new units & techs are a bit meh.
That said its still as addictive as crack!

Goodshape

I've loved all the Civ games in their time... can't really comment on which one's the best though - when the new one comes out it's always been so long since I've played the last one.

Can't see how Civ1 could have been better than Civ3 though... I'm sure I'd miss the extra's if I went back to it.

Celtic Tiger

Civ1 was before my time but Civ2 stole endless weeks of my life.

Turn on computer at 10. "Ok an hour of Civ then an early night." Six hours later collapse on keyboard

Civ3 is good but nowhere near as addictive for me (thankfully)

MrPinK

It was a shame that none of the nice new features that were introduced in Civ: Call To Power 1 & 2 were used in Civ III. Sid Meier seemed intent on undoing all the changes that had been made to his series, and it ended up exactly like the first 2 games.

bizmark

It was a shame that none of the nice new features that were introduced in Civ: Call To Power 1 & 2

Lads Call to power 1 and 2 had NOTTING at all to do with Sid myers and the Civ 1-2-3 games

If they used the features from Ctp 1-2 in Civ 3 there might of been a law suit (again)

MrPinK

It's more complicated than that. Sid Meier left Micropose but they still owned the rights to the Civilization name, so Call To Power was a continuation of the series just without Meier.

bizmark

oh i didnt know that

Call to power 1-2 where class games

MrPinK

There was a big dispute over the name. Meier wanted to use it for Alpha Centuri but Micropose wanted to make their own games with it. Don't know what happened with Civ 3, whether they let him have the rights to the series or he took them to court for them.

Giblet

Civ 3 was good, but Civ 2 is better.

Sand

Civ 3 was good, but Civ 2 is better.

You mean relative to the time when they came out? Because Civ 3 is far better than Civ 2 imo, its just not an advance - more of a update.

PiE

Of course it's technically better, but with regards to addictiveness, Civ2 owns everything.

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

civ 2 is good.... but not great...

civ 3 really does kick ass compared to all other turned based games available... but **** civ games are sure as hell adictive... all during my ****ing history exam in the leaving cert i was trying to concentrate but all i could think about was getting home and conquering the ****ing russians and how i would do it!!!!!

<

---

COMPLETE SAD ACT...

P.S i got a b+ in history. honours level. used some stupid corner of my brain that had somethin small in it... barely passed tbh... ****ing civ has basically ****ed my life.

Atreides

Originally posted by Sand
You mean relative to the time when they came out? Because Civ 3 is far better than Civ 2 imo, its just not an advance - more of a update.

Civ 2 played faster on slower machines, I know thats why my friends proferred it to civ 3, which could be a hog.

Lyconix

Has anyone here played multiplayer Civ3 with one of the expansion packs enabling it (Play The World/Conquest)?

I've been tempted to on a number of occasions, but I'd be afraid of what would happen if I did... the Leaving Cert is eating up my time, I really couldn't afford to find 24 hours or more (without exageration) gone to a multiplayer game of Civ!

As for the game itself, I find it enjoyable and addictive but I still think that theres much that could be done with it. For instance, the fact that the computer players demand unfair amounts in trading (you can't just trade one natural resource for another - you need to throw in a little extra) annoys me - sure, it makes the game more challenging, but I would have preferred superior computer AI instead of a cheap shot like that.

Civ3 fans could do well to have a look at Star Trek: Birth of the Federation if they like ST. It is very similiar to Civ, albeit in space, with actual 3D combat scenes dispersed throughout. Old now, and still a bit buggy unfortunately, but excellent in multiplayer.

GreenHell

Civ 3 is one of the best games around the reason for this is the fact you can play it over and over again, each time different. If its not your thing, grand.

Big Ears

Originally posted by Michelangelo
Sorry I have not been playing games the last ten years, let alone 3 years.

I like Age of Empires 2 and was hoping this would be the same but it is not. I move, you move. And the worst is it only allows me to move one box at a time. It seriously sucks. I hate it.

PS: I got it for free too and the update without manual.

you would probably love rise of nations . (its way better than that crappy age of empires 3) . Its made by the people that make age of empires although the designer did work on civ 2 . Its RTS and is like age of empires except you can build up ur resources quicker , i could say more but ur better off looking at a review or downloading the trial version .

halkar

Originally posted by Lyconix
....

As for the game itself, I find it enjoyable and addictive but I still think that theres much that could be done with it. For instance, the fact that the computer players demand unfair amounts in trading (you can't just trade one natural resource for another - you need to throw in a little extra) annoys me - sure, it makes the game more challenging, but I would have preferred superior computer AI instead of a cheap shot like that....

.

But AI gives you a lot of money and good resources when you have something worth trading I always try getting the tech advances that I know they won't be going for and get it before them, this way you can trade your advances for 2-3 tech from them and whatever they have in the bank and some resources:D
This is usefull, as later in the game if you don't have coal (usually rare and needed for railroads, without railroads you be wasting your time, your life ), they will not trade with you unless you have something good, that is where the tech advances comes, just tweak around your tech strategy and try not going the same techs they will go for. Works for me all the time

Civ 1,2,3... Roll on 4