Sid Meier's Civilization 3

All those who remember Civ II (which at the time I thought was the best game ever made), will get great benefit from this newer version. I like to see Civ 3 as the logical sequel to Civ II, and tend to ignore the tangential Alpha Centauri and Call to Power.

A simple test: if you get a copy of this game, play it for a bit, and then return to have a game or two of Civ II, the improvements become much clearer. The older game looks cumbersome and lacks depth in comparison.

I was a little annoyed when I first started Civ 3, as the immediate look-and-feel of the game is different. Strategy games like this have nothing to do with graphics, however, and only by playing Civ 3 for a while will the real expertise that lies behind it shine through.

The diplomacy is a massive improvement. The different methods for winning encourage different approaches to gameplay, and many more options are now available for building a winning civilisation. The notion that there's only a set amount of ways to achieve victory is frankly RUBBISH. Only someone who has failed to experiment could make such a claim.

I managed to win a game without ever actively attacking an opponent. Other games I won by being as bellicose as I possibly could be.

Forget all the nonsense that's talked about this game and get yourself a copy. It's a fine wine amongst a cellar full of cheap plonk, taking time to acquire a taste for, but well worth it in the end.

Diplomacy has not been greatly improved, by which I mean small empires and backward races still demand WAY more than they should. "Give me invention", "Give me your world map", "Give me money" will be the general gist of all conversations with the computer and they will want them in exchange for a pittance. On the otherhand, should you want to trade for a technology/resource etc they have, expect to pay double or triple its actual value... I dont make the mistake of demanding it, even a civilization "in Awe" of you will still war for the tiniest of demands (and they will somehow convince every ally you have to do the same too).

Corruption is REALLY crippling, with improvements and government types having only the barest of impacts in reducing the problem. An empire of 10 cities on a medium map can expect around 5 of them (no matter size) to be TOTALLY useless, no money, no shields... This seems to be the case with most government types including democracy and republic.

The American version has also suffered some bugs, giving the general impression the end product has been rushed.

In the combat, there still occurs the old Phalanx vs Tank problem, where the Phalanx can kill any number of Tanks thrown at it. This can get particularly annoying sometimes.

Either the devolopers or publishers, I dont know which, made the desicion to ship the game without Multiplayer which in this day and age is almost a crime. In my opinion there will be a convenient add-on costing £20 in which this will be rectified... *sigh*

All that said, the game is still an addictive Civ game, it is not an updated version of Civ2, it is very much a new game in its own right. It is still fun too, for the older civ fans out there most of these problems are merely challenges to be overcome.

After getting used to the "new" rules, I found a great game to play - the computer can even be a "sincere" ally... if you treat it right, it will treat you right. And you can swap/exchange almost anything. Impressive!

You can also win the game through 6 different ways (that you can turn on/off) which is a great plus.

But a few items are annoying:
* If you are into military conquest, the final part (modern times) is boring as you might need to move a lot of units across the board - this has made me give up in times;
* Technology goes too fast so that some units you rarely use because new ones are developed very fast;
* There are 2 or 3 glitches that can remove some fun (beware of battleships finding it's way in automatic mode - it might declare war on who you do not want!)