Civ-series games

[bayonetbrant]

Interesting read here

https://www.pcgamer.com/soren-johnson-says-civ-3s-bargaining-table-was-a-big-mistake/

[Martok]

He isn't entirely wrong.  On the other hand, 4x and grand-strategy games increasingly include options to limit and/or entirely disable "tech brokering", which is the single biggest way in which bargaining table diplomacy is abused.  (Stellaris and the Total War games don't even have the concept of tech trading, for example.)  So while it is a problem -- or at least it can be -- I have to wonder if it's really still as big of an issue as he thinks it is. 

(Also, if Soren hadn't come up with the bargaining table concept, someone else would have, sooner or later.  So I'm not sure how much he should blame/excoriate his younger self for implementing it.) 



Incidentally, I strongly dispute the author's assertion of Civilization 3 being recognized as one of the "all-time greats".  I've always seen a lot of love for the 2nd, 4th, and sometimes 5th game, but never Civ3. 

[Anguille]

I would think it was already available in Master of Orion. Have to say that i never liked the diplomacy/trade game in Civilization games and always prefered the one in Master of Orion 1&2.

So I would agree in the sense that it has been badly done with too much micromanagement.

Imperiums Greek Wars system is much better

[bbmike]

I still love Civ3. Civ3 added national borders to the game, religion, culture, strategic and luxury resources, unique units, Golden Ages, and a great scenario editor that lead to a metric ton of player created mods and scenarios. Is it the best Civ? I don't think so as I believe each one has improved on the last. Is it one of the "all-time greats"? Compared to other 4x games, you bet it is.

As for the "bargaining table", like you said Martok, it's really not that big of a deal. The problem is (like other features) how get the AI to use it properly.

[Undercovergeek]

I think it was 3 that introduced essential resources for u it’s - if you didn’t have iron you couldn’t build knights and so on - I loved that

[ojsdad]

Rhyse and Fall mod for Civ3 was great.

3 was also the last one to have squares if I recall. Or did 4 also have squares and not hexes.

[Barthheart]

Civ 4 also had squares. 5 was the first with hexes. 

[Martok]

Yep, Civ5 made the switch to hexes -- and then had to immediately ruin it by switching to 1UPT.  Thus began the downfall of a once-great franchise.     

[ojsdad]

I'm not sure I ever played 4. I do have 3 on Steam. Might be fun to see how it plays versus 6

[BanzaiCat]

I played them all to death, though not as many hours with VI. I really liked V but I played tons of VI; I thought the hexes were an improvement, but ymmv.

[Barthheart]

Yep, Civ5 made the switch to hexes -- and then had to immediately ruin it by switching to 1UPT.  Thus began the downfall of a once-great franchise.   

 

[bbmike]

Yep, Civ5 made the switch to hexes -- and then had to immediately ruin it by switching to 1UPT.  Thus began the downfall of a once-great franchise.   

[Anguille]

CIV 3 is probably my most played Civilization along with CIV VI. I played it a lot while waiting for the release of Master of Orion 3. It has some nice scenarios (like Mesopotamia). Mostly like the Antics in CIV3.

Never managed to like Civilization 5 though.

[bayonetbrant]

Not only did I play a shit-ton of Civ5, I wrote about it a lot, too.

But I used to pull up Civ3 for hours at a time in 07-08-09 time frame, especially when I was a geo bachelor with nothing else to do most nights, and then for a year and change I'd get at least 90 minutes in 2x/wk sitting on a long-term conf call at work waiting for the 2 minutes that we had to report something during the call.

[Martok]

I thought the hexes were an improvement, but ymmv.

I will probably always favor hexes over tiles.  Not that I dislike tiles or anything -- they're fine for what they are -- but hexes just work better IMO. 

Heh, I thought that might get a response from you two.   



In all seriousness, though, no one ever talks about Civ3.  Not that I hear a lot of hate or criticism for the game, true, but I've also never really even seen much discussion about it at *all*, good or bad.  My (obviously subjective) breakdown of the franchise... 

Civ I:  Obviously gets talked about for being the first game in the series. 
Civ II:  Was a huge improvement over the first game, but also infamous for descending into micromanagement hell. 
Civ III:  ?? 
Civ IV:  Often considered the high point of the series, with great production values and good AI. 
Civ V:  Discussed for all the changes it made from Civ4 (for better or worse), including & especially the switch to hexes and 1UPT.  (Also: city-states.) 
Civ VI:  Some interesting game design choices, but it's somewhat notorious due to its cartoonish visuals and bad AI. 



In fairness, I do vaguely recall Civ3 introducing some new ideas/concepts to the franchise, while also being a bit wonky in ways I don't remember.  (I had a roommate at the time who talked about some of the game's issues, both positive and negative.) 

But whether it's good or bad, Civilization III is the one game in the series that I don't ever see anyone talk about -- not in articles, forums, Discord, etc.  Aside from the occasional piece that covers the franchise as a whole, Civ3 never seems to get mentioned, hence my statement it's not among the "greats". 

The 1st game was ground-breaking, the 2nd and 4th games are generally considered "good", the 5th and 6th games are controversial (which means they're at least conversation-starters), while the 3rd game is just kind of...there.  It feels like the forgotten entry in the franchise.