Rating: 
Summary: An improvement over a great classic.
Review: I became an avid Civilization fan beginning with the first Civilization title -- but it was the Super NES version, until I got my first PC.Civilization III has made great improvements over the original, and Civilization II. Diplomacy -- Diplomatic dialogue is more sosphisicated in Civilization III, compared to the previous two titles. There are many more options and possibilities when it comes to diplomacy, such as Mutual Protection Pacts, Trade Embargoes, and others. Economics -- Trade has become much more vital in Civilization III. With some powerful military units now requiring specific resources in order to be built, you will need to ensure your cities have access to the right resources, or trade for those that are not available in your territory. Culture -- Now, for the first time, you can expand your territory without direct military conquest. With the help of some city improvements and Wonders, your national borders will expand over time, as you accumulate culture points. I also feel that with Civilization III, strategy is more in-depth, due to the expanded diplomacy system, along with the improved combat system in time of war. For instance, if your enemy has only one city with a port, and they need to keep that open to have access to a specific, vital resource, you can blockade that city with naval units and thus, possibly deprive them of being able to build certain military units. I loved Civilization and Civilization II when they were the current titles, and now, I'm enjoying Civilization III. One single player game can last quite awhile, but I'm a type of player that actually enjoys a longer game. If you're not that type of player, you might want to think about it more before buying it.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Civilization of them all
Review: It surpassed my dreams. There were several problems with Civ II. The biggest was the diplomacy. In real war, when one sues for peace after virtually destroying the other civlization, the vanquished usually gives up money or cities to beg for mercy. The idea of trading cities, paying money per annum, and rights to enter each others territory (in Civ II, I started too may wars because enemies caravan units would block my roads) were terrific improvements. Another great addition is resources. In Civ II, it simply didn't make sense for a Legion to be created when your civilization didn't have any iron, cavalry without horses or tanks without oil. This has completely changed my strategy (much more realistically), where resource monopoly is key to winning. With most of the oil or rubber, you can demand the terms of trade and then with greater war chests, build massive armies to conquer more resources. Also, this has spawned wars on every front to get resources; much more realistic. Culture is another genius addition. While it is frustrating when you conquer a city, and it returns to the rival civilization, it represents the truth much better. Not only that, buch with suprerior culture, you can take others' cities without enter one unit into them, and there are no diplomatic consequences. One of the reviewers made a good point that it does take an entirely new look at Civ, and your old strategy must change. Despite the resources, the biggest change in strategy is the wonders. No longer are Leonardo's Workshop, Adam Smith and Michaelangilo's Chapel the most important; you will have to find out which ones are, I'm not giving away my secrets. There is another wonder change - minor wonders. These are a selection of wonders that every civilization can build, and when one is built, it does not deny others from building their own minor wonders. There is one thing that is a problem - all the other players eventually team up against you, but only if you are the superpower. However, this might be more realistic (has anyone read the papers recently?). There is another aspect which irks me, corruption. While this isn't a new concept to Civ, it can have paralyzing effects on over seas cities. But this again is true with non-Democracies, so it is another truthfull aspect of Civ III. In the end, it is a great game, and I recommend it for all Civ fans!!
Rating: 
Summary: A disappointment
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed Civ2 and Alpha Centauri, and I eagerly anticipated the release of Civ3. What a major disappointment. There are a few pluses in this game. The enhanced graphics produce more realistic looking terrain and units. Trade and diplomacy is more realistic than in Civ2, with extensive haggling, development of trade routes, and placement of luxuries and natural resources. That about does it for the pros. The game has six pathways to victory, which should be a major pro, but turns into an unbelievable con. I love a challenge, but the AI seems to focus on beating your civilization, rather than have seven other civs competing with yours on an equal footing. If you try to win by conquering, rival civs will team up on you, force you to make peace, and then re-take your possessions with cultural expansion. It is extremely annoying to conquer a major rival city, and then have it rejoin its mother civilization -- while the rival civilization takes your conquering army because it is busy pacifying the resisting city!! If you try the peaceful route and beautify your cities with cultural monuments, somehow the aggressive civs find you, target you, and wipe out your pitiful army while carving up your civ. And you can forget trying to change strategies midgame -- if you don't stick to one goal, you are doomed. Basically, it seemed that in Civ2 it was possible to balance production, military force, and keeping a population happy. The added cultural dimension of Civ3 makes it too difficult to manage. I was able to be competitive up to the king level in Civ2, and in this game, I struggle mightily with the regent level and eventually get whipped. Maybe its me, but I don't think so. I checked a few of the online strategy guides, and it surely is possible to win at the higher levels -- but only by using seemingly unorthodox methods that betray the spirit that made the game so addicting in the first place. Who wants to build cities one square apart in horribly overlapping radii so they can win the cultural battle? Finally, they ruined the air and artillery units. I liked Alpha Centauri's system much better, which allowed a gamer to craft air units with specific functions, and target enemies in unit-to-unit combat. I hope Civ4 will take the best parts of Civ3 (trade and diplomacy) and Civ2 (military management), and create a challenging, but fair game. The cultural dimension could be cool, if it was done properly.
Rating:
Summary: Patch helped some, but not enough
Review: Since writing my last review, I reinstalled Civ 3 & gave it another chance. I then downloaded a patch from the game's website, hoping it would make the game more fun & fair. This time, the game did last long enough for me to survive to the modern age, but many problems remain. A lot of features are still useless: 1. Diplomacy is still not realistic, much less reasonable. When trading with a rival civ, I can never, ever ask them for per-turn payments for any resources, luxuries, or technologies I offer them--even though they almost always insist that *I* make per-turn payments for THEIR goods! Also, I find it futile to demand tribute from them, especially since I can't compete militarily with them. Yet THEY will sometimes demand stuff from ME, & if I refuse, they declare war on me. 2. Espionage is useless because it costs more than 1000 gold to even ATTEMPT to steal tech from a rival, money that I never have anywhere near. All I really can do is build embassies, build an Intelligence Agency, & plant spies (& even then I often have to raise my tax rate & lower my research & entertainment rates to raise the cash). As frustrated as I am with the prices my rivals set to sell their tech willingly (for example, I pay lump sum 300 gold plus 20 gold per turn for 20 turns--you do the math), at least it's cheaper than the clumsiest attempt to steal it! 3. Fortresses are ineffective because rival troops invading my borders can go right past a fortress, & any of my troops occupying it do nothing. I just can't build a fortress on every square along the edges of my borders, much less afford the troops required to occupy them. I have to keep telling my rivals to either get their troops off my land or declare war on me--& more often than not, they'll do the latter & wipe me out quickly because, again, I can't compete militarily. 4. Why can't I compete militarily? Because even under governments like Despotism & Monarchy, only a certain number (& no more) of military units per city will keep my citizens happy, so I must devote most of my resources to city improvements like temples, cathedrals & colosseums, & to Wonders of the World such as the Hanging Gardens. Thus I can barely defend my own cities, much less even try to conquer my rivals' cities. 5. Mutual protection pacts backfire. Whenever I sign one with one civ who then goes to war with another, I find myself in an unwanted war that exposes my weak cities to invasions from without & riots within. 6. Last, but not least, this game is frustratingly slow, even on a high-speed, high-memory computer that way exceeds the system requirements listed on the box (or in the manual or wherever). Beyond the Medieval Age, it takes me more than a minute (or even 2 or 3 minutes) to load a previously saved game or to wait for a turn to be over after I've exhausted all my moves. It even takes so long to QUIT this game, I'd just as well do an emergency reboot, which takes about the same amount of time. If you have a home network (like I do), & you play this game on the host computer, & you have to quit the game so you can get connected to the Internet to accommodate your family's e-mail & web-surfing needs, then you're at risk for heated family conflicts on top of all the problems I mentioned earlier plus various others that other reviewers have complained about. This game is so rigged in favor of the AI civs--even at Chieftain & Warlord levels--that no amount of patching will make it fair. All in all, the frustration still outweighs the fun.
Rating: 
Summary: Waste of money!!!
Review: I bought this game because everyone told me it was good. I thought it would be like Age Of Empires which, for its time, was great,turns out it [is terrible]! This game is so boring that i stoped playing it after about 40 mins., i played it again with the same result. Don't waste your money on it! Instead i would recomend C&C Red Alert 2, C&C Red Alert 1, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, C&C Generals or MechCommander 2
Rating:
Summary: Turn basing at it's finest
Review: i didn't get civ I or civ II, i just got this as a christmas gift (i played with it for 3 months before i even touched my other presents) it's now been 2 years, and i still play it. one user friendly feature is that it's turn based, a handy feature for those still new to the computer stratagey game platform ( and veterans for that matter). highly addictive. ... my real rating is 4 and half (amazon doesn't allow halves), the lack of the half star is only because there's no underhand negotiations, or co-heasive battle plans (i.e. you can't say to the french: 'let's sneak up on moscow and attack it!') among other small problems, but please, if you have [$] you can afford buy this game!
Rating:
Summary: Worthless game!
Review: Don't waste your money!! This game is not very balanced, come on 2210 and you only have spearmen, get real here people. If you can find anything to upgrade your units consider yourself lucky. The diplomancy is a joke and the game just drags on forever. Again if you want a good RTS game buy Rise of Nations instead.
Rating: 
Summary: fun game with lots of replay but some downsides too
Review: Civ III is a extremely fun and challenging game. Do you become the high-tech small country or the huge, vast, lower-tech empire. Although it is theoretically possible to be a high-tech giant, it borders the impossible line a little too close for me. Another thing is the extremely short game time compared to the amount of research you must do. Feel lucky if you reach the Indutrial age before the end of the game and you have more than two cities. Only once have I been able to reach the Modern Age before the game ended and that was only two or three turns before the end of the game. The game should last about a hundred turns longer if you ask me. I want to meet one person who has seen the Spaceship without some serious cheating. That person should win a prize or something. Aside from that small gripe, the game really has no other downsides. One small thing that bugs me is that Swordsmen do not upgrade into somthing else, so if you don't disband them, you can have a Swordsman in the Modern Age, that is somewhat stupid. The political system is somewhat whacked if you ask me. Ex: I was a large, powerful country with middle tech, had a large group of cavalry. Anyway the Aztec leader (he has maybe three cities and my military advisor is laughing at the pathedicness o his armies) demands something from me. Red flag one, small weak never demands anything from large and powerful, even the simplest AI should know that. Red Flag two, when I refused, the Aztec declared war on me, that just sound absurd. It took me maybe 2 turns to annihilate him. I hope the next game has some smarter AI programs Fun game to play if you have some spare time, but there have been better, lots better.
Rating:
Summary: Frustratingly Shoddy
Review: Amazing, they had such a long time to work on this game since Civ2 came out and it's full of problems. Even the patches -- a year after the game's hastened release -- did not solve many of the problems. The interface is poor, and if you're not really careful, one of your cities will riot and destroy everything (just because you have a fast computer and the screen glanced over the riot). The combat imbalance is worse than ever, worse than Civ, Civ2, etc. I cannot imagine how swordsmen routinely destroy tanks. It's not even tanks losing attacks against them, it's swordsmen winning attacks on tanks! Ridiculous! Plus there are movement problems with many units on improvements. The pollution system is way out of control. It almost takes the fun out of the game when 90% of the round you're spending shifting the workers around to the pollution spots that pop out in a city with all the recycling/mass transit schemes and limited in size by no hospital. They should have worked out the bugs and did MORE BETA TESTING before releasing this. I've gone back to Civ2, it's more fun and more fair.
Rating:
Summary: no more boring nights
Review: As a fun way to learn about geopolitics and arms race. how to balance an economy and diplomacy, Civilisation is the closest thing to the real thing. and the turn by turn feature allows you to play it like a chess game, which it is very close too.
Hours, days, months of gaming fun. you save a game and can come back a week later. play for 5 hours or 3 minutes at a time. and when you go back to reading the world news you say,"hmm looks like my game"..
there is no other such brilliantly made game on the market. yet. if you own one game for your computer, this is it.
| 
