View Full Version : How to win. A short guide.


Ari
Jan 17, 2002, 06:14 PM
There are few simple rules to obey to really enjoy the game. I think.

1. Always play Deity, after you've learned the game. The challenge is low anyway.

2. Know what you are doing. You need a goal. If you just play, you'll lose anyway. And run to that goal. No walking, no turning.

3. The easiest civ to play is Persia. Immortals really slaughter your enemies. Iron can always be found. The second is Iroquois. Mounted warrior is fast, so they seldom die, and the attack of 3 can beat even the musketmen. The romans are also quite good, militaristic and legions are effective, but clearly second rate to previous two. The rest are scrap.

4. If you want to win, wage an offensive war. If you are going to wage an offensive war, build first barracks, only after that units. There's no point in wasting your population or shields to build regulars.

5. If you want to win, play despotism. Slave hurry is unbalancingly good.

6. Wonders. Why should you build them? Just conquer them.

7. When you conquer an enemy city, raze it. Unless it (a) has a useful wonder(pyramids) or (b) it has enough wheat/cattle to grow very fast or (c) you plan to do little trading with it(see 9) or (d) it has resources you want.

8. Move enemy workers gained from razing or capturing to a nearby city and use them to hurry your armies. Either Immortals or Mounted warrior. Really speeds things up.

9. If you have conquered a big city from enemy, dont garrison it, if your enemy wants to talk to you. Then make peace and exchange that city for several small, secluded cities in the back. Then conquest it immediately back, it's empty now. I have repeated this thrice, before enemy ran out of towns. I don't think it's fair, but anyway, what does it matter? We are here to win.

10. Don't care about your reputation. Just attack them first. Stab. Raze. Betray. And finally you will beat them.

11. Always build roads right behind your invading armies. Always.

12. Take advantage of the terrain. Drag the enemies towards some open place, they follow you obediently.

I don't know if I've forgotten something, but if I have, I'll probably post it later.

How do these function in game? Let's take a small look to game I played with Persians on a tiny map:

4000 BC found Persepolis. In city radius one wine and one cattle on grassland and few mountains.
Started to develop iron working. Built a second worker, spearman, temple and barracks in Persepolis. Invented iron working, found iron 3 tiles away from Persepolis. Used second worker to build a colony and the first to make a road. From then on, only immortals.

2390 BC Declared war on indians, my nearest neighbour. Razed Bangalore. I had only one immortal at this time. Victory trickered the golden age, so I got an immortal every three turns.

2110 BC Razed Calcutta.

1750 BC Captured Delhi(7b) Made peace with Indians, extorted all the tech they had and city of Bombay, leaving only Madras to them.

1575 BC Stabbed indians, destroyed Madras. Only two enemies were left: China and Japan.

1425 BC captured Beijing(7c)

1400 BC changed Beijing for Xinjian, Tsingtao, Nanking, Chengdu and Shanghai.

1375 BC Lost Nanking, Tisngtao, captured Beijing(7c). Started to reposition my immortals, I had lost only one until this date.

1175 BC Destroyed Canton

1125 BC Stabbed Japan, destroyed Kagoshima.

1075 BC Destroyed Tsingtao, end of China

1050 BC Captured Satsuma(7d). Changed Beijing with Japan to Osaka, Tokyo and Edo. Lost Edo.

1025 BC Captured Beijing(7a)once again, chinese resistance ended completely.

1000 BC Captured Edo and Kyoto, end of Japan.

End of game. 18501 points. Easy, isn't it?

Ari

Ari
Jan 17, 2002, 06:37 PM
13. Never build settlers. They aren't needed except VERY seldom. Instead, build military.

Aeson
Jan 17, 2002, 11:56 PM
1. Always play Deity, after you've learned the game. The challenge is low anyway.

Why play Deity if the game is played in a way that makes it easy? The whole point of playing Deity is for a challenge. Using psuedo-exploits like pre-patch city trading kind of ruins the whole point IMO. Most of the other advice you give is solid. I do think that playing on small/tiny maps makes for too easy of games though.

If all you're after is a high score, try playing from this save I'm attaching ;) (takes no strategy/skill, just an edited map that I used to figure out the conquest scoring bonus)

Grey Fox
Jan 18, 2002, 09:02 AM
Tiny Map / Deity / Pre-Patch... Right?


I don't get why people play, prepatch just so that the can use more exploits... like trading cities... you can't do that post-patch...

Ari
Jan 18, 2002, 09:07 AM
After I installed patch, it became harder to trade cities, but it is still possible.

And the point here was to WIN, not to ENJOY.

Moo
Jan 18, 2002, 05:40 PM
Ari, how did you fare on larger sized maps with Deity? I am playing Deity on standard map, 8 civs and raging barbarians. I am having a hell of a time.

Ari
Jan 18, 2002, 05:59 PM
For now I've played as deity only three games in tiny, one standard and one small.

Tinies I won. It took ~3 hours a piece.

Standard I'm playing with iroquois. I've destroyed Aztecs, Americans, Egyptians and Romans. English, greek and french remain, but I got bored because the map is so big, and there's no group move. Why not? But I think it's possible to beat them still.

Small I just started as greece, beated the romans. Right now I have to decide whether I'll kill'em all(I could do that), or if I want a more peaceful solution for a change.

I haven't yet seriously tried big maps, I find it disgusting there's no decent way to fight against corruption. Though I have to test it with that new patch, I got it only yesterday.

I'm no more so sure about the goodness of Persia/Iroquois. I just won with iron age greeks, not using my hoplites, against romans, who would have had legions, if they wanted. They had iron in their area, but they built no road to it. Is AI really that weak militarily, don't they realize the use of strategic resources? If they build warriors and spearmen to ATTACK, how could they hope to win?

CivAl
Jan 19, 2002, 07:42 PM
Well, sure, if you want to play around with the combat model...

but are you really playing the game? You only founded one city! You didn't build a civ, you just destroyed the others. Although you did win of course :-)

Anglophile
Jan 20, 2002, 12:43 PM
While the advice given is good for specific conditions (tiny maps) and play styles; it can't be considered universal. I play to build a civilization and enjoy the game, not to destroy and win - although I do like to win. Would suggest that if you find the game too easy, even on deity using your approach that you go to the editor, expand the huge map to 256x256 and then attempt to developan an unbeatable strategy under those conditions. Heck, you might even have fun - and you will certainly have to learn to build.

Beam
Jan 20, 2002, 01:09 PM
Agree with Anglophile, also what is the long term appeal of winning by Tiny Conquest?

Try a large or huge map on Deity and have fun with your Slave Hurry.

Ari
Jan 20, 2002, 06:08 PM
I build better than any of you. Anyone can build. Winning is the challenging, fun part of the game.

I will play large perhaps the next. I just don't like that much moving around, it's boring. But I still believe the DID principle will bring victory.

CivAl
Jan 20, 2002, 06:58 PM
And I quote:
"6. Wonders. Why should you build them? Just conquer them. "

Ari
Jan 20, 2002, 07:12 PM
Well, that means you don't need to build them, it takes less resources to conquer them. Ofcourse you can build them, if you wish. And I've built them often. The point here is the most efficient gameplay.

DB_Terror
Jan 21, 2002, 09:28 AM
Making just one city most probably won't work on bigger maps. Why play tiny maps if you can win in 1850 BC? It takes more time to win on larger maps, and it will take you into the more advanced technologies. I really, really like modern units like tanks, bombers and battleships so I always play large maps. Plus, you can't just conquer a wonder because you simply won't get there if it's on a different island. You need to come up with much more versatile strategies. But in the ends, it's just personal preferences what you like...

CivAl
Jan 21, 2002, 01:03 PM
Agreed. You're taking advantage of the fact that there is only 3 enemies and at most 5 cities to beat, giving you a window of only up to 1000 BC. If your enemy's techs ever got as far as Pikemen, or maybe even Swordsmen/Horsemen, you could never win this way.

Also, how do you win against the Aztecs this way? Or the Zulus?

Ari
Jan 21, 2002, 03:26 PM
Yes, I have one game on large map going on. It just takes more time. I'm going to play one in huge.

Aztecs are easy, zulus even easier usually. Greeks are difficult to win.

Pikemen makes no difference, at that time I usually have so many swordsmen. Even musketeers lose eventually, but it's demanding a lot resources.

And about different islands: ever heard of ships? Galleys can be used to transport your units to other islands.

I've won romans with legions, aztecs several times, Egyptians with war chariots. AI simply can't wage a war effectively.

Aeson
Jan 21, 2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Ari
I build better than any of you. Anyone can build. Winning is the challenging, fun part of the game.

Again, if winning is the challenging, fun part of the game, why set up games so that winning is easy?

As far as city trading goes, the AI will not trade cities at all with the patch. You can still gift a city to the AI, or demand a city for peace, but adding anything to compensate for the exchange of the city will cause them to never accept the trade, even if it would be beneficial for them to allow the addition. Try it, demand a city that "they will probably accept" and then add something that you wish to give to them. It will change to "they would never accept such a deal". That ruins the "big city for lots of little cities" trades you mentioned.

I do agree that conquering wonders is the best way to play on Deity games. The only time I build ancient era wonders are in OCC games, or the Lighthouse if there is a lot of water on the map. The time it takes to build a wonder is just too much compared to the time it takes to build up an army to take that wonder once it has been built. Usually by the late Middle Ages, or early Industrial, wonder building becomes worthwhile.

Ironikinit
Jan 21, 2002, 11:22 PM
Possibly the least fun approach to the game I've encountered.

CivAl
Jan 22, 2002, 12:17 AM
I'm not against conquering wonders. Often when I don't get a critical (or even good) wonder I'll mark down its city, and if I ever go to war with that civ, then I know where the wonder is if it's feasible to conquer it.

I'm just against stuff like:

"And the point here was to WIN, not to ENJOY."

"1. Always play Deity, after you've learned the game. The challenge is low anyway. "

"Easy, isn't it? "

coming from the same author as:

"Winning is the challenging, fun part of the game. "

I mean, isn't that slightly hypocritical?

"Again, if winning is the challenging, fun part of the game, why set up games so that winning is easy? "

Couldn't agree more. I would play Huge maps except it kills my computer. It must be pretty fun, though. :-)

Hobbes
Jan 24, 2002, 05:18 AM
The real test will be when multi player is released. This and various other strategies will be tested when they have real opponents (i.e. human) to go against. I think that the results will be somewhat different.

eyrei
Jan 29, 2002, 09:30 AM
I just don't see the fun in playing like this. Maybe I just have an overactive imagination, but I try to play civ3 like I am actually trying to run an empire. An empire that did nothing but conscript people to fight in the army would begin to collapse very quickly from the inside out. I realize the game is not entirely realistic, but one can make it more realistic by not playing like this. This sort of gameplay sounds like RISK with different types of terrain.

Minmaster
Jan 29, 2002, 01:41 PM
wtf, ur playing on tiny maps and think this strategy will work on standard and larger maps? ur dreaming. tiny is not even a challenge.

ur topic title should've been "how to win on tiny map" or something.

Ionhead
Jan 30, 2002, 04:43 AM
Ari, tiny maps are boring. You think that large is big. Even huge is only just big enough for me. You will have a real war on your hand if you fight in the modern era. I agree that the enemy AI is weak militarily, but on a huge map with, say, 6 opponents on deity, by the time you meet them (using any tactic you like) there's no way you can win just by churning out endless immortals. You're missing half the game your way.

If you like to set yourself goals to win by - then why not set yourself the goal of winning with a cultural vistory with the highest score possible. Then you might be able to win AND enjoy.

brody
Feb 12, 2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by CivAl
I'm not against conquering wonders. Often when I don't get a critical (or even good) wonder I'll mark down its city, and if I ever go to war with that civ, then I know where the wonder is if it's feasible to conquer it.

I'm just against stuff like:

"And the point here was to WIN, not to ENJOY."

"1. Always play Deity, after you've learned the game. The challenge is low anyway. "

"Easy, isn't it? "

coming from the same author as:

"Winning is the challenging, fun part of the game. "

I mean, isn't that slightly hypocritical?

"Again, if winning is the challenging, fun part of the game, why set up games so that winning is easy? "

Couldn't agree more. I would play Huge maps except it kills my computer. It must be pretty fun, though. :-)

Funny, I am also among the "strange" people who like to enjoy the game, not find exploits to win the fastest way possible. What's more is I believe in waging war only if all other options fail. The game is much more interesting if you try to actually be the best civ, not just kill everybody!

And I am playing a huge map right now with my little 450MHz computer... I tell ya, the 3+ minute wait between turns is killing me... and I'm only at 1350 AD!! Yes, next time it will be a smaller map. :)

brody
Feb 12, 2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Ari
After I installed patch, it became harder to trade cities, but it is still possible.

And the point here was to WIN, not to ENJOY.

now this is truly funny... your first post says, right at the top of the page, "There are few simple rules to obey to really enjoy the game. I think."

I didn't even notice how contradictory you are until just now... how funny.

Terminal Strike
Feb 12, 2002, 08:28 PM
why did I waste my time reading this article, no less now I am even responding too it. If your goal is to win a conquest so early in the game, why are you playing this game in the first place? I fail to see the point or the fun of what you have written here. As far as strategies are concerned this one sucks, find a different thread.

Bamspeedy
Feb 13, 2002, 04:26 PM
I build better than any of you. Anyone can build. Winning is the challenging, fun part of the game.

I will play large perhaps the next. I just don't like that much moving around, it's boring. But I still believe the DID principle will bring victory.


:lol: I would pay to see anyone try this strategy on a Huge pangea map with 16 civs on Deity. Yes, there are people who beat deity on a huge pangea map, but certainly not this way. By the time you get your units to your neighbors territory, your units will practically be obsolete and you can bet the Romans WILL have Iron connected to their cities by then (if they have any). And it certainly will take more than one city with no improvements!

David In Asia
Feb 14, 2002, 02:15 PM
hi all

Possibly the least fun approach to the game I've encountered.

i've only played two games so far, and even i can see that this is true. in one breath ari says this is a formulae for just winning the game, yet in another he says

....to really enjoy the game....

also:

I build better than any of you

i don't know if ari means us or the AI........:vomit: enough said.

cheers
d

Irish Caesar
Feb 16, 2002, 09:28 AM
Early conquest is interesting, but the replay value is not there when you destroy enemies right away. It is fun when you fight against a big civilization and modern technology, but sometimes you don't even need to have war and still play a fun game.

ABX
Feb 20, 2002, 05:58 AM
I don't know why do you have to whine about this strategy.
This strategy is very good for a specific situation (what you have correctly pointed out) but you can hardly use it in a more standard game enviroment.

And besides who are you to judge what fun is for someone else.

The most interesting post was about the multiplayer strategy. For now we can only assume what it may look like, but anyhow we still looking forward to find the perfect one.

And please include the difficult level for which the tactic is good for.

Mapache
Feb 23, 2002, 12:57 PM
When playin tiny map Deity conquest you don't even think of Wonders. I look for the other ~8 cities and destroy them. Which Wonder could be helpful? Every conquered city produces more Jaguar Warriors so I usually don't raze. I try to build a Barracks.

kcheung
Feb 23, 2002, 10:31 PM
Put it this way -- this strategy only works when you are allowed to win by domination victory or conquest victory. If these 2 victories are prohibited, it's uselss.

CivAl
Feb 23, 2002, 11:03 PM
If you asked for a random civ, with a random terrain type, size, etc, how often do you think this strategy could win? It certainly would not work very well on anything but Pangea, because you would need (hopefully) Map Making or (more likely) Navigation. On maps Standard or Larger, it takes too much time, and the other civs have better units and will whip you easily. Just taking those two factors into account, that's less than a 30% chance of getting the right setup to use this strategy.

kcheung
Feb 25, 2002, 10:43 AM
Yes, let's say there're 2 big continents separated by 2 oceans (Huge Map.) You are on 1 continents with 2 opponents. By the time you clear your continents and spending your time fighting instead of climbing the tech tree, the 2 civilizations on the other continents probably develop flight already and you may still be on Galley. You can't travel to them, but they can hit you. How can you win?

Keep in mind that when you are engaging war to your continental opponents, you drag their tech advanced down also, so at the end, you might not be able to learn much from them even if you ask for trades.

kcheung
Feb 25, 2002, 10:50 AM
Oh, one more thing, what if you don't have iron around -- first of all, you won't see them until you learn Iron working, how could you possibly know whether your city has iron around. Are you going to fight with warriors?

Cabal
Feb 28, 2002, 02:32 PM
After reading this thread yesterday, I went home last night and tried just what Ari described: Tiny map, 3 other Civs, with me as the Persians. And I gotta say, his strategy worked exactly as he described. Iron cropped up right on schedule, and my Immortals (combined with Knights a little later on) went through the opposing forces like butter. In succession, I eliminated the Americans, the Germans, and the Japanese and scored a Conquest victory in the mid 1400's.

Is it a limited strategy? Certainly. My one stab at it revealed that even on a Tiny world, wars of aggression are tough to sustain; the amount of troop movement necessary is burdensome, and it's a delicate balancing act to make sure you're hitting the right place at the right time. And even in a game where my sole purpose was supposed to be to find other cultures and kill them, I still found myself building Wonders and sending out settlers, just for the sake of variety! I don't think I could play a solely military game of Civ (besides, I have Starcraft for that! :cool: )

Still, I admit that it was a nasty thrill to be an unabashed warmonger, especially when I got to watch my Army unit (3 Immortals) take three enemy cities in as many turns...

This little experiment revealed something else: In case you weren't sure, the scoring system definitely doesn't reward purely peaceful development! Through most of the game, my score was in the high 80's to low 90's, with the other Civs somewhere in the 50's. Once the game awarded me my Conquest vic, though, it showed my final score as being almost 900 points! If I'd simply blockaded the last Japanese city to prevent growth or escape, and then concentrated on building culture, science, and settling open territory, I wonder how much higher the score might have been.

I don't think I'll play many games this way, but it was an interesting change of pace!

Grey Fox
Feb 28, 2002, 02:56 PM
What do you mean by high 80's and low 90's???

and is 900 a high score for you?

Then you must be playing on chieftain level.

For everybody out there still playing the Game on Chieftain diff, please try a harder diff. (You are cheating against the comp on Chieftain and Warlord...)

Cabal
Mar 01, 2002, 09:42 AM
What do you mean by high 80's and low 90's???

Just what I said. Less than three digits.

and is 900 a high score for you?

By no means. I regularly score well into the thousands. But from not-quite-cracking-100 to 900 in one end-of-game jump was pretty startling! At least to me, because I don't go for Conquest victories; I'd never seen such a massive leap in score before.

Then you must be playing on chieftain level.

Indeed I was. As I said, I typically don't play Conquest (I'm much more of a builder), and the above-described game was an experiment; consequently I wanted it over with in a few hours. Higher difficulty levels like Monarch are for games where I want to get involved...

For everybody out there still playing the Game on Chieftain diff, please try a harder diff. (You are cheating against the comp on Chieftain and Warlord...)

Now, now, don't be a snob. ;) The lower diff levels were put into the game for a reason. Sure, it's a good deal more challenging winning on Emperor than on Chieftain, but it boils down to what you enjoy. If someone never plays anything other than Chieftain because they have the most fun that way, that's fine. We can feel superior because we prefer harder games if we wish to, but we shouldn't imply that Chieftain players are somehow doing something wrong (besides, given the plethora of hacking options out there, difficulty levels are the least of it when it comes to "cheating")...

Grey Fox
Mar 01, 2002, 12:06 PM
I have a freind that is still stuck on Chieftain level, he has played 20-30 games and he is still playing on chieftain and he has never lost.

My suggestion is only that everyone should TRY to play a harder diff, and if you think it's to hard, play again. You learn more from your losses then your wins.

Ari
Mar 28, 2002, 06:27 AM
Back after a long time away... The goal and the fun comes from winning.

I have scored 19335 points in tiny map, see HOF.

On large map I played iroquois and scored 10777. Unfortunately that doesn't go to HOF, because it's started with the old version, so I could trade the cities, and I think it would be unfair.

Maybe I'll still play someday a highscore.

Shabbaman
Apr 02, 2002, 05:09 AM
when...if!

gunning1
Jun 26, 2002, 08:26 PM
Are you saying to make only one city? That doesn't sound right.:confused:

MirandaCore
Jun 28, 2002, 09:18 PM
If u have an older version (I can't get the new patches since I don't have the cd), u can win on diety by conquest even if u don't have a military. All u have to do is post 4 warriors each next to 9 or 10 of ur peripheral cities. Then give the cities to another civ as a gift. Then declare war on that civ and immediately take back ur cities. Since u just conquered 9-10 cities of the AI, the AI won't refuse ur envoy. In the peace process, trade those peripheral cities u just captured for the AI's cities. Then declar war again and repeat the process.

This strat is sooooo incredibly cheap, but then again, the AI is soooooo incredibly stupid.

Portuguese
Jul 04, 2002, 04:31 PM
I will exp it, but with 7~8 inicial cities...

WillJ
Sep 01, 2002, 09:37 AM
Will this strategy work with version 1.29? I was thinking of trying it, but it involves trading cities. Can you really do that with 1.29?

ducki
Oct 25, 2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Ari
[B]For now I've played as deity only three games in tiny, one standard and one small.


Interesting, considering

1. Always play Deity, after you've learned the game. The challenge is low anyway.


I'm confused. If you only played 3 deity games, how can you post rule #1?


Some of the advice seems valid, but I prefer to actually build an empire, not just destroy/capture other cities. I think that's why I didn't like Age of Empires - I prefer to build.

Still, you gotta admit the discrepancy there.


And, in another post you said that the point is to WIN not to ENJOY.

Not for most of the people I talk to. Games are for fun. If the most barbarous win is fun for you, groovy, but it's still about having fun. Otherwise, why spend $40 on it?

werdhertz
Oct 27, 2002, 10:20 PM
This appears to me a Quake players guide to Civ 3.

wargasm23
Oct 29, 2002, 10:32 AM
it would also be cool if you could watch replays of civ3 games like on warcraft 3

wargasm23
Oct 29, 2002, 10:35 AM
If u have an older version (I can't get the new patches since I don't have the cd), u can win on diety by conquest even if u don't have a military. All u have to do is post 4 warriors each next to 9 or 10 of ur peripheral cities. Then give the cities to another civ as a gift. Then declare war on that civ and immediately take back ur cities. Since u just conquered 9-10 cities of the AI, the AI won't refuse ur envoy. In the peace process, trade those peripheral cities u just captured for the AI's cities. Then declar war again and repeat the process.

VERY INTERESTING!! plz explain in more detail buddy.

thanks

Portuguese
Oct 29, 2002, 11:51 AM
I think that strategy is quite more difficult if you have installed the patches...

Namagima
Nov 01, 2002, 02:45 PM
First, I just like to say your guide is pretty cool. I've been looking for some advice to give a friend of mine, who is brand new to the CIV universe. Personally I've found huge maps give me the greatest satisfaction of the overall game experience. I must admit I haven't played diety yet in CIV3, but that is just a matter of time.

Portuguese
Nov 02, 2002, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Namagima
First, I just like to say your guide is pretty cool. I've been looking for some advice to give a friend of mine, who is brand new to the CIV universe. Personally I've found huge maps give me the greatest satisfaction of the overall game experience. I must admit I haven't played diety yet in CIV3, but that is just a matter of time.

It's not so cool as it seems at first sight. Only work with the defined parametrers!!!

Moonsinger
Nov 06, 2002, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by willj
Will this strategy work with version 1.29? I was thinking of trying it, but it involves trading cities. Can you really do that with 1.29?

No, you can't do that with patch 1.29f!

satchel
Nov 19, 2002, 03:10 PM
I'm coming a little late to this party, but I've got to say that Ari lost all credibility with me with this statement:

Originally posted by Ari
I build better than any of you.

:lol: I'm sure. You know, sweeping statements of your own superiority aren't going to sell your ideas nearly as well as thinking up quality ideas in the first place!

At any rate, you are certainly entitled to play the game in any fashion that amuses you, but for my money, your "strategy" takes all the fun out of the game - all of it - and leaves an empty shell of a "game" with absolutely no depth, one that I certainly wouldn't waste energy playing.

But you get higher scores than I do, so your approach just has to be more fun! :lol:

Darkness
Nov 26, 2002, 04:36 AM
But you get higher scores than I do, so your approach just has to be more fun!

Ah, the wonderful world of sarcasm...:D

sysyphus
Jan 01, 2003, 09:39 PM
The thing about Ari's logic that misses on me: the point is to win the most effective way possible.

Then he sets the game up in a way that facilitates his goal.

Personally, I think this is akin to challenging a bunch of 5 year olds to the sporting match of your choice.

Yes you'll win, but so what? Do you feel successful winning at something stacked in your favour anyway.

The real satisfaction comes from winning at something that was a real challenge.

Portuguese
Jan 06, 2003, 03:09 AM
To you, me and most CFC posters. Not surelly to him, though. ;)
But if he likes it that way...

Phantom Lord
Jan 12, 2003, 12:05 PM
First of all, I liked Ari's article. It's well written, a good read and probably a good guide on how to win on tiny pangea maps. Only thing I didn't like was the city trade thing because it exploits a bug, but the bug was fixed. Persian immortal rush on tiny map is a killer, no doubt about it.

But winning under these specific circumstances is only one aspect of Civ 3. Besides the city trade this tactic is playable. I've been researching some tiny strategies myself, with the difference of playing on continents and yes, all those strategies were aggressive in nature. Finally I got bored with playing on tiny, but I started playing a few conquest games on tiny because I was bored by cultural and spaceship victories on standard and large maps at that time.

Ari's tiny map strategie reminds me of rush strategies in multiplayer RTS games. Many RTS games are at least for a certain period of time dominated by rush strategies - until appropriate counter rushing and anti-rush strategies balance things again.

Civ is no RTS and will never feel like one, with or without its various mp modes. Therefore an attempt to use RTS type strategies in Civ may work under certain circumstances (if you can get to your enemy fast, which means small map, one continent, plus maybe a fast early UU) but there so many other possibilities that playing rush on tiny maybe is fun for only a few days.

95% of Civ were built to do something else with this game. Missing those 95% is OK if you like it this way, but maybe you've spent your money on the wrong game. If you like that style, get Total Annihilation. You will fall in love with the concept of Flash rushing and in no TA forum I know you'll get flamed for Flash rushing, it's a basic concept to open and maybe win the game on land maps. The advice to play TA instead of Civ is in no way meant to be cynical. TA is one of the greatest games of all times but rushing is simply more common in TA, altough you will miss some of the best parts of the game too if you rush exclusively.

I think real good Civ players (I'm not one of them, maybe an average monarch player) can adapt to every given map or culture in many different ways and to find out those ways and being able to win in different styles is the real fun of Civ. Why not go for culture win with the Zulus? Or no, let's try playing an indian warmonger instead.

Nevertheless Ari bought the game and if he gets his fun out of doing things the way he does, it's his choice.

And as I already said, I enjoyed his article altough it describes only a solution for one small aspect of Civ.

[edit: spelling]

wilbill
Jan 17, 2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Ari
I haven't yet seriously tried big maps, I find it disgusting there's no decent way to fight against corruption.
Another somewhat narrow view. There are plenty of ways to fight corruption, but they involve building things other than swordsmen/Immortals.

wilbill
Jan 17, 2003, 07:39 AM
double post, sorry...

satchel
Jan 17, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by wilbill

There are plenty of ways to fight corruption, but they involve building things other than swordsmen/Immortals.

:lol:

OmegaMega
Jan 19, 2003, 06:32 PM
Never build serlers huh? I see... so how do I gain control of far of Iron deposits? And I doubt its goin to be pretty when an enemy rallies 3 more civs around you and crushes you. I find that if I betray someone, I get a 4-civ alliance vs me.

Tarwoch
Jun 05, 2003, 06:59 AM
Small and tiny maps are truly easy to achieve conquest victory. The area is not large, the amount of cities is small, the resources are just stacked up near starting locations -- yeah!
Playing Deity gives you surplus score.
Yesterday I was playing a game for Indians, and I destroyed Chinese, Japanese, French, Zulus, and Persians after 150 turns.

blix
Aug 09, 2003, 02:28 PM
This strategy is completely undeniable stupid and would drain my treasury with in a matter of turns.

Peter Harris
Oct 22, 2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Ari
I build better than any of you. Anyone can build. Winning is the challenging, fun part of the game.

I will play large perhaps the next. I just don't like that much moving around, it's boring. But I still believe the DID principle will bring victory.

Umh, I have a question? How can you claim to build better than any of us if you nothing more than a barracks in your one city? Perhaps you build your build your barracks with added skill and flair? :D

BTW It is easier to win by conquest on tiny maps, even at higher difficulties. Even I can do that and I am certainly not good at the warfare aspect of Civ3. ("I make war worse than any of you". :crazyeye: ).

If I may say so, it seemed to me that you are setting up your worlds to support your strategy. I took this one step further and set up a world to support a conquest strategy which will work under any circumstance. I just set up a map with all starting locations just next to mine with numerous modern armour for me and I destroyed all other civs in 4000 BC. :D They deserved it. :goodjob:

one_man_assault
Oct 24, 2003, 08:24 PM
mannn all Im saying is all u cheapos and exploiters who think your real good would get worked real quick on Multiplayer...ppl know how to play there and you actually need diplo and tactical skills not a few tricks and exploits that cheat the dumb AI

mbalazs
Dec 05, 2003, 07:01 AM
I tried this strategy and it works to me on tiny& small maps. My choosen civ was not the persian but the aztec.

It should be modified when you play on larger maps. When you play on continents you can rush your continent& defeat the other civs on the other continent with some building strategy(till yhe diplomatic victory)

I was quite pleased. I can win on deity large with aztec and then...

Then I changed the version to 1.29. I cannot win. The cities cannot be traded, the AI won't ask for peace just rarely.
You cannot rush the other's.
Then I tried to build more but it was useless as I waited.
The AI civs was too fast for me they traded their technical development fast.
What can I do? Could someone help me?

Darkness
Dec 08, 2003, 07:19 AM
People this thread is old and outdated, dating back to unpatched vanilla civ3... I doubt much of it is accurate anymore...

illiterate
Oct 30, 2006, 01:35 PM
Another somewhat narrow view. There are plenty of ways to fight corruption, but they involve building things other than swordsmen/Immortals.

You mean there are problems in life that can't be fixed with swords? :confused:

Theryman
Oct 30, 2006, 01:54 PM
Wowza, the name fits the man. Mega huge bump.

Anyways, good strategy for victory, bad one for fun.

illiterate
Oct 30, 2006, 01:56 PM
Since I can't play civ at work, i waste time reading guides to it.

Raveren
Nov 02, 2006, 03:07 AM
This strategy is completely undeniable stupid and would drain my treasury with in a matter of turns.
Totally true.

Thread closed. This is pure spam.