Rating: 
Summary: Civilization III
Review: The graphics are much better in III than in II, which makes the game much more interesting. Can set and play for hours before you realize you should be doing other things!!
Unfortunately in these particular ads, CivIII is not listed as XP compatible. Is this why I have problems?
The time line seems to move much faster than in the other Civ games, which is a GOOD thing.!
Rating: 
Summary: Corruption Model and Cultural Model: A Proposal
Review: The best and worst changes/additions in Civ3 are probably the Corruption and Cultural Models. Unlike civ2, civ3 allows corruption even in democracy. It's realistic and sounds good, but the degree of corruption is so high in civ3 that it makes any city on the edge of your continent or on another island basically productionless, and makes it really painful to produce enough army to protect these cities or build enough city improvements to make it immune from another civ's cultural influence. And for cultural influence, personally I like the idea in civ3 but sometimes it's getting ridiculous. E.g. my own empire was big and healthy, but some faraway cities decided to join Babylon, which had been attacked by my civ and had only one small city left!So here is my proposal for the Corruption Model:
1. It's true there's corruption in democracy, and the degree of corruption should be mainly dependent on the TEMPORAL distance of a city from the capital instead of the spatial distance. And the temporal distance should be defined as the number of turns the fastest unit (or slowest, you name it) needed to travel from one point to another point, either through wilderness, or by road, RR, or airport. This can partially explain situations like in the early days of U.S. when the west was wild and lawless yet in modern times cities like LA is no less productive than NYC.
2. City improvements like University and Cathedral as well as Courthouse should also help to hold the corruption down. I think the reason to add this two should be obvious. With the above two factors, I'm looking forward to have a corruption level down to less than 5% in even the farthest city in a democracy. As for the Cultural Model, I think the volume of a civ (total cities and population), and the number of armies in a city, in addition to certain city improvements, should help to resist the cultural influence from another civ. I don't think in reality any city in a big and strong civ should depose the ruler and turn to a civilization with only a 2-people city even though it may be famous for its cultural advances.
Rating:
Summary: Too addictive... too long... but a lot of strategic fun
Review: I've been a Civilization fan since Civ I. This is a good improvement; graphics are better, animated characters are also a plus. Negotiations are the biggest improvement and even sound background is less anoying as previous versions. Some things still need improvement, for instance, corruption levels tend to be too high regardless of government type, military units, etc. Unit strength is also weird... I can not explain how very modern and powerful military units just lose a battle to an ancient, primitive military unit, it doesn't make any sense at all! I also miss some things from previous games... I loved the movies that celebrated wonders and big improvements; they were inspiring... also, the animated - multimedia panel with all the advisors actually speaking their thoughts, etc. was fantastic... it made me feel as though I was really managing them; the current interfase with the advisors is more powerful, but less power-feeling. Anyway, I love playing the game, and recommend calling an addiction center if you get too much into it!
Rating: 
Summary: A little bit of a disappointment
Review: If it wasn't part of the Civilization series this game would have gotten 4 stars but it was a disappointment after the awesome earlier installments of the series. The graphics are excellent and a nice improvement as is the culture system. But the game takes too long to play and the strategic resources can make or break a game. Too often I've played a game for hours only to find out that the few available saltpeter or coal squares are all far away from my vast empire and my neighbors aren't willing or are unable to trade for it. If you have the time (12-20 hours isn't unheard of for 1 game) then this is an excellent game to play. But if your time is limited check out Civilization 2 or Alpha Centauri for a great game.
Rating:
Summary: Not as addictive as ...
Review: However, it's kind of like ...-you do it a whole lot cuz it's so novel and fun but one day, you're done and don't feel the need to do it again because it was as exciting as it was going to get. This is how I felt after winning the space race. Having gotten acquainted well with the temperament of the AI(which does not vary from nationality to nationality much) during several marathon attempts to find the winning strategy, I hit on the right ideas to win, and it wouldn't be any fun to do again. They are: 1. Be a ... before the others get a chance. Everyone will turn on you eventually, especially when you are doing well.
2. Space your cities out. The idea here is size of territory, not volume of cities. Three blocks between each will do it. Thats really it. So what fun is that? Alpha Centauri is the crown jewel in Meier's Civ canon. In that game, the factions all have disparate temperaments, and choices you make will endear you to one faction and make you the villain of another. Any rash success or failure will cause your neighbors to cut you down.
Some cool aspects of the game before I continue kvetching:cultural influence-improved cities next door to rival cities with lesser development can cause upheavals and defections to the better-improved empire;Golden Ages triggered by Wonders that increase revenue(et tu, Alpha Centauri?);war time economies and drafts speed building of military units;leaders who create armies;units and philosophies unique to each empire that affect production and happiness; small wonders which each empire can build;and strategic resources like oil, rubber, aluminum and uranium that permit the building of new war machines that you'll need desperately if you are going to be any good at this game at all. Hint: the bigger and more successful your empire, the better your chances are to get resources inside your territory. If you are a hesitant player at all, the computer will deposit few or none of these resources in your territory. It's supposed to be a random scattering of the resources, but I've noted a correlation between aggressive play and the amount of resources in your locale. Sounds logical to me.
Things that will annoy you: Wonders of the World have notably less effect on your empire than previous incarnations of Civ. They're also impossible to complete as you cannot hurry them and cannot have more than one city producing it. Realistic yes, but frustrating.They increase your culture, but often are extraneous. Units and developments sometimes overlap each other in usefulness and therefore are not built. This is due to the poor set up of the technology discovery. The ironclad, for example, is available one advance ahead of the frigate, and the only difference is an increase in offense and defense, so whats the use in the existence of the frigate? This happens with other units as well. You can develop a republic before a monarchy, in fact, its easier. Why? Cant go straight to republic without a loss in production, you know. Too many developments in the end of the game, when production is light speed and you've vanquished most of your opponents. War:nearly impossible to wage unless you have approximately 5 times the strength of the enemy. Pollution is waaay overbearing. No finale for the space race, no film, no nothing. You just win. Inexcusable in the shadow of Alpha Centauri.
All in all, a vain attempt to be more realistic, which is checked by tedium. It's not worth its high initial purchase price. Wait til it goes down a bit.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor realism - but loads of tedium and micromanagement
Review: A big disappointment. They are now coming out with an add-on expansion called "Play The World" which is nothing but new makeup and graphics on the same game. But the basic problems remain, the result of lack of playtesting before release. If you like better graphics Civ 3 is for you; if you like something that is enjoyable and stimulating, pass on this one. Civ 2 was fun; this is not. 1. The AI cheats in many ways to defeat the human. It breaks its own rules and AI civs gang up on you. 2. Micromanagement is terrible later in the game. Modern wars are almost impossible to play as a result. Very tedious. 3. The AI although better than Civ 2 is not that much better, and it still does dumb things. 4. The basic values in the game are absurd. Units are too low post-gunpowder, and strategic resources such as iron are far too rare. 5. An entire game can be ruined by something called "culture flipping" in which a city "deposes" its ruler. In fact, this means you can lose most of your army with no warning, and see a city that has been yours for thousands of years, suddenly join another civ. It can not only ruin a game, it can be infuriating; it is so unrealistic. 6. The game has generally been dumbed down. It is much less historical and realistic than Civ 2. It now seems aimed for twelve year olds who care nothing about History, just corny graphics. 7. Espionage in Civ 3 is AWFUL. Very expensive, tedious, and ineffective. 8. Trade is also a tedious abstraction. No more caravans or freight as in Civ 2. 9. There was a lot left to explore later in the game in Civ 2. In Civ 3 there is nothing left to explore by the time you get to the Medieval period! This is unrealistic, and kills a lot of the fun. 10. There are many small quirks with the game that make it less fun, and irritating, such as an inadequate editor and no good scenarios. Lack of Civ 2 style scenarios has been a major problem. 11. Even on a fast computer the game is SLOW by the Industrial period. The bigger the map the slower it is. More tedium. A lot of other things make this a big disappointment. Try Europa Universalis II.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Series
Review: I own Civ 2 and would rather play it than the new version. The new version is very complex and not that playable. Civ2 had the perfect balance of being complex, fun, and playable.
Rating:
Summary: Yawn
Review: Same old stuff. Another rip off. If you've got the other Civs dont bother.
Rating:
Summary: Civilization is getting better, but not dramatically.
Review: This game is brilliant. True, it is very, very similar to Civ 2, just with better graphics and a few things tweaked a little. But really, what more can you ask for? If you don't own Civilization 1 or 2, buy this one without thinking twice about it. If you do, on the other hand, it's up to you. If you're willling to spend the money for a few tweaks and incredible graphics, go ahead, but otherwise, Civilization 2 will do just as well.
Rating:
Summary: Civ 3 is so great it brings new meaning to life
Review: Dont listen to the naysayers. Much of what they complain about is simply not true. The AI is superb and rarely (if at all) cheats. It is simply the best Ive ever seen, and Ive played every game in the Civ series, Alpha Centauri, Europa Universalis, Master of Orion I/II, just to name a few. It has been shown time and time again that wherever the AI is accused of cheating, it in fact is not. The 6 difficulty levels will ensure you always have a challenging game. There is awesome fan support for this game, and with Play The World coming out, Id say its all worth it. Its important to keep in mind that this game was not developed by Brian Reynolds, the developer of Alpha Centauri, Civ II and Colonization, it is a Sid-game through and through. It has a Civ I feel to it, but thats not to say its unsophiticated, just different. The fans of Civ II / Alpha Centari might not like it as much. The primary example, for better or worse, is the combat system. The combat system is reminiscent of Civ I. There are no longer Hit points and Fire power. So yes, the tank will lose to the phalanx one in a few hundred times. There are "HP" of a sort though. Experience ranging from conscript up to elite determines hit points. Conscripts have 2, regulars 3, veterans 4, elite 5. Now in another review someone complained about the AI cheating at combat. This is simply not true and has been proven false so many times. What IS frustrating is teh occasional phalanx beat tank phenomena. Adding "Culture" adds another dimension to the game. Building cultural improvements will not only possibly allow a cultural conquest of a neighboring city, but can sure up against invasion. Resistance to an invading army is determined by the amount of culture in taht city. So taking and holding the enemy capital can be very difficult. This however has a downside. If you lose the enemy city this way you lose all your units in that city. That can be frustrating. However resistance decreases with the amount of troops stationed in the city, so you simply must quell the resistance and then start building your own cultural improvements to lay the seeds of your own culture. Those are just a minute handful of the improvements of civ 3. The biggest thing Civ 3 has going for it is the fact that the designers are always in contact with the fan community. Many times are there informal, impromptu chats at one of the many fan sites. The game is continually being improved upon. Hopefully if sales do well it will return with a few more expansion packs and rival Civ 2's greatness.
| 
