View Full Version : Do you like it? Strat. Resouce problems
Oct 31, 2001, 10:46 AM
New to this forum...thought I'd get some opinions from others on the new Civ3. Anyway, I was really excited to get this game out of the box and running....but now I'm feeling a bit disappointed. It seems like 'Call to Power' had more options. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent game, but it just doesn't seem as in depth. And the AI seems a bit unflexible when negotiating. Also, this strategic resources thing is a problem. I've restarted the game about 3 times after reaching the industrial age, and only 1 time did I find a source of iron on a HUGE continent. And after about 100 years, the iron source was exhausted. To those of you who haven't played yet...you need iron to build things like pikemen, swordmen, frigates and knights, etc. Otherwise, you'll still be using archers and spearmen up into the 1700's. I managed to find a source of saltpeter for musketeers on a remote island, but we'll see how long it holds out. Too bad there's no multiplayer option....then again....maybe I was just too excited to play that I didn't read the manual and could be missing something.
Oct 31, 2001, 05:00 PM
You played "call to power" and liked it?
www.apolyton.com for you.
Oct 31, 2001, 08:42 PM
Do you get to choose how prevalent resources are in a world when you choose a custom world?
Nov 02, 2001, 04:52 AM
To all the boys and girls who like Ctp your nuts. I really hated that game. It isnt in balance you can straight for tanks while the AI still have pikeman etc etc etc.
I dont have Civ3 yet but I already know that is way better than Ctp its has to be. Because Sid meier is the one, he is the enlightend one SID MEIER RULES.
Nov 02, 2001, 11:39 PM
I just said that CTP had more options. And no, you can't choose the abundance of resources. And in this version of Civ, NOTHING becomes obsolete. I had tanks and fighters when others civs were defending their cities with warriors and spearmen. And the year was 2020 AD. I could still build warriors along side my tanks. I have played it through to the end on a few difficulty levels and it just doesn't seem in-depth enough. I do have to admit that the AI did slightly more reasonable as time progressed. And it was much more enjoyable as you moved into a more modern age...but by then, the game was over. Like I said before though, the AI is VERY one sided in its dealings. Even when they need a valuable resource, like oil, and say that you need rubber, they will refuse to trade unless you stack on a ton of stuff for them. Even if they were the ones that approached you for a trade. All in all, I'm not saying the game is bad, I just wish there was more options.
Nov 03, 2001, 12:15 AM
They have to keep primitive units available, even in modern times, or you wouldn't be able to build a military at all if you were disconnected from your resources (not that it makes much of a difference).
And the AI isn't so much intransigent in negotiations, they just won't back down from their original deal (unless they are in awe of your culture, in which case you can usually screw them). So if Abe Lincoln offers you a technology in exchange for your own tech and 50 gold, you can't just take away 50 gold (he won't accept the deal) but you can replace it with something else that has the same value to him.
Nov 03, 2001, 05:30 AM
the AI is much more sophisticated then before, that's the big difference... If you can't take that, well, you can always go back to Call to Power :)
And I don't agree that you had more options. Giving 1 gold per turn ? Trade resources ? Give a city AND some troops ?
Nov 03, 2001, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diety
[B]the AI is much more sophisticated then before, that's the big difference... If you can't take that, well, you can always go back to Call to Power :)
Maybe I won't stick around. Besides, the more I've played it, the more I like it now.