Who plays Civilization III?

[Juniper]

Anybody tried? Is it as good as the last one?

 

[AZGamer]

Even better, except some issues.

 

[PaNsyBoy8]

its a great game, i don't remember playing civ 2, but i'm sure i did, i did play the original for sure and its just as good as that one if not better.

 

[sohcrates]

My roomate (who HATES most video games) has been playing CIV III for hours on end recently....He gets a kick out of bombing Afghanistan....

 

[Maetryx]

lol about Afghanistan
I play Counter-Strike. I call it Killing Terrorists.

 

[atomicbomberman]

so is this game worth the money?

 

[BeauJangles]

Awsome game Get it! Well worth the money!

 

[brisco]

I bought this the other day, haven't installed it. I liked CivII. Are you all saying I need to install 3 and check it out?

 

[Scouzer]

I duno...3 is a huge change its going to take some getting used to for me.

 

[Looney]

Hm i might have to go get this real soon. Been playing Ghost Recon lately (which is fun too).

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

one thing i don't like about civ3 is that your bombers can't finish guys off, and you can only attack one unit at a time. this means that taking over a city requires a lot of your units at a time, to weaken the enemy with bombs or artillery, and also to fight each defender. So for a city that has let's say 4 defending troops, you're gonna need 4 or more of your guys, cuz after every round they just keep buying new troops if you don't take over that city. that's gh3y.

in civ2, what was cool was that you were able to completely overwhelm a technologically weak civilization in a bliztkrieg type attack with a few of your dudes. but now, even when your troops are significantly more powerful, you need a lot of planning and positioning to pull off a devastating attack. i guess that makes for a more realistic game, but it's also a real pain in the ass when you've got 30 bombers trying to weaken their stupid warriors or pikemen.

i guess it's because i like to end my wars in just a few rounds... kind of like recent US trends in warfare eh? gotta do that quick before the citizens start bitching about "give peace a chance". What's really sneaky is to agree to a free movement in other people's territory thingy, position all your dudes around all the enemy's cities... then declare war and destroy that civ in one or two rounds. hahaha yes, that is teh r0x!

 

[alareau]

i love it when tanks lose to pikemen. They need to be nerfed or else the pikemen will rule the world!

 

[yobarman]

i started playing this game last night and after not playing any civ for a long time...i gotta say it's the EXACT same thing so far, with better graphics. I'm still getting the hang of it because i used to be able to play with just the keyboard, but right now im just thinking deja vu with everything that pops up in the game

 

[CoolTechie]

i donno i dont think civ 3 is all that great.. i pretty much stopped playing it allready... ghost recon is sik though.. love that game

 

[Juniper]

Thx for the reviews. I nearly forgot that I posted this message.

 

[CraigRT]

I like CivIII alot.. been playing quite a few hours of it..

I hate how quickly the other civs populate the land.. I sometimes get trapped into a small area because they have 9999 cities after like 1 hour of playing... how stupid is that? no pick and choose of city placement.. then again, that's always been the thing with Civ.

I don't play on the harder difficulty levels though, maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[Spooner]

I gotta say, this game does rule, but it isn't very different from Civ2. The whole "culture" thing is really stupid and the AI isn't any different. They really need to build up the diplomacy part of the game to be a really cool total package. Instead of just treading over to a city and taking them over, you should be able to do other things, like hold workers hostage or something... for gold/land/technologies. Also, teaming up with other civs should be more prominant. I know you can be "allied" with another civ, but it really doesn't mean anything.

OVerall, the game is still addicting as all hell (as all civ games tend to be), but i don't see large differences between 3 and 2, except for better graphics and cool war animations.

do NOT buy the limited edition set. it's so not worth the extra $10.

 

[ManSnake]

Overall, I think Civ3 is a great game, I love the concept of culture, strategic resources, etc, definitely adds more realism to the game.

Things I dislike about the game:

-Computer thinks too much, making the game too slow at times.
-Unrealistic battle, how can a knight defeat a tank or a little wooden boat defeat a modern battleship?
-Unreasonable computer opponents. Virtually impossible to get a fair deal out of trading strategic resources.

If they can somehow release a patch to address those issues, then Civ3 would not just be a great game, but an AWESOME game.

 

[jonMEGA]

:Q we lost our supply of furs!

 

[Dacalo]

whats with the AI threatening you even though you can obliterate them in few rounds? They need to tweak the AI if you ask me... Its just sad how they released it as a sequel and the AI is the same as CIVII... i thought they promised better AI? :frown: