Worst Civ?

walletta said:
Not for the first time, I do wonder whether we are playing the same game … :crazyeye:

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

'the first time' ??
You have located the editor, yes? You can open (or make) a biq file (a scenario file). You can select debug mode under the 'scenario' option. (left of 'Help')

Open the game, open the scenario, start a new game, you should now be in debug mode.
 
The Portuguese have to be on the short list of worst overall. Two questionably useful traits (Seafaring and Expansionist) that work against each other and offer no cheap buildings, as well as a bad UU (the Carrack), make for a bad civilization. I've played dozens (hundreds?) of games over the years (usually at Monarch), and I don't think I've ever seen a powerful AI Portugal. They're usually tiny and backwards, if not completely wiped out.
 
Theov said:
'the first time' ??
You have located the editor, yes? You can open (or make) a biq file (a scenario file). You can select debug mode under the 'scenario' option. (left of 'Help')

Open the game, open the scenario, start a new game, you should now be in debug mode.
Click to expand...

I have located the editor, no.
 
Roundman said:
The Portuguese have to be on the short list of worst overall. Two questionably useful traits (Seafaring and Expansionist) that work against each other and offer no cheap buildings, as well as a bad UU (the Carrack), make for a bad civilization. I've played dozens (hundreds?) of games over the years (usually at Monarch), and I don't think I've ever seen a powerful AI Portugal. They're usually tiny and backwards, if not completely wiped out.
Click to expand...

you can travel oceans before everyone else and at a greater speed.
The Expansionist and Seafaring usefulness are inversely correlated, that's true.
I think the AI is bad at them because there's no shield, food or commerce bonus, other than in harbor/near sea cities.
 
walletta said:
I have located the editor, no.
Click to expand...
Your installation should include one Editor for each Civ3 version, stored in the same folder as the game .exe, i.e. the Vanilla editor (called 'Civ3Edit' IIRC) will be in the root .../Civ3Complete/, and the PtW and Conquests Editors will be in .../Civ3Complete/PTW/ and .../Civ3Complete/Conquests/, respectively. AFAIK, only the PTW and Conquests Editors have a debug-mode.
 
tjs282 said:
Your installation should include one Editor for each Civ3 version, stored in the same folder as the game .exe, i.e. the Vanilla editor (called 'Civ3Edit' IIRC) will be in the root .../Civ3Complete/, and the PtW and Conquests Editors will be in .../Civ3Complete/PTW/ and .../Civ3Complete/Conquests/, respectively. AFAIK, only the PTW and Conquests Editors have a debug-mode.
Click to expand...

This is Greek to me, much as I appreciate it. I am not at home in the Windows environment, play the game on Steam and have no idea where to find these folders of which you speak.
 
Open your file explorer located on your bottom tab if you are on windows 7-8 and type in the game's address:

For steam users= C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization III Complete

For people with the disc= C:\Program Files (x86)\Atari\Sid Meier's Civilization III Complete

The address changes sometimes depending on the year product, but you get the idea? Look for something similar.

1- It will definitely be on C:\Program Files (x86), and all you will have to do is look in there for the right folder. It could be atari, activision, steam, or whatever else. Everything you need you will find once you locate that main folder.
 
ZergMazter said:
1- It will definitely be on C:\Program Files (x86)
Click to expand...

I would advise against installing under C:\Program Files (x86). Starting with Vista this causes nothing but trouble, because the .sav files will end up in a strange location. See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8032403#post8032403
Windows gurus may get it to work under C:\Program Files (x86) with things like "Run as Administrator" and compatibility settings, but it's much easier, if you just install in a separate folder, like C:\mygames or something.
 
I am going to have to say England or Portugal, Their UU is naval and naval battles are literally never relevant, The real damage is when you hit their ground units and the only way to progress in a war is to take cities. Sinking a fleet won't do anything important. if the map is islands they just use a ship as cannon fodder because dropping off their troops is all that matters even if the ship that brought them is destroyed. You may loose you fleet but it won't matter as long as you drop them off. Use a ship as cannon fodder that you know will be destroyed to protect your transport ships

At least Zulu has melee units that replace the warrior not the spearmen, So you are like sumer with mobility
 
ZergMazter said:
Open your file explorer located on your bottom tab if you are on windows 7-8 and type in the game's address:

For steam users= C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Sid Meier's Civilization III Complete

For people with the disc= C:\Program Files (x86)\Atari\Sid Meier's Civilization III Complete

The address changes sometimes depending on the year product, but you get the idea? Look for something similar.

1- It will definitely be on C:\Program Files (x86), and all you will have to do is look in there for the right folder. It could be atari, activision, steam, or whatever else. Everything you need you will find once you locate that main folder.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Zergmaster.
 
Immortal7777 said:
I am going to have to say England or Portugal, Their UU is naval and naval battles are literally never relevant, The real damage is when you hit their ground units and the only way to progress in a war is to take cities.
Click to expand...

Using Man-o-Wars i managed to bomb my enemy into stoneage. At that time that did more harm than i could have done via land units if any tiles were free for landing there. In the long run England often is the strongest civ because seafaring + commercial allows the highest total commercial output. The -50% costs on naval buildings helps very much in reaching this "in the long run" because prior to offshore plattform production at the coast is low.
 
Yes, England is actually pretty strong on most maps.

I think a "worst civ" does not exist, because it all depends on the circumstances and on what kind of victory you are trying to achieve. Some civs are good at fast research, others at ultra-aggressive military victories and others at fast cultural victories. Some are good on Archipelagos, others are good on Pangaeas. But I don't think that any civ is "bad at everything".

Take a look at SGOTM14. In that game we were playing Portugal on an "archipelago-like" map with one big continent. Difficulty level: Demigod. Our scouts made 2-3 local contacts quickly, while our fast curraghs discovered a big number of offshore contacts. The early commerce from seafaring allowed some fast research. In the end we were tech-trading so fast, that we left Despotism in 1990 BC! Also the Carrack allowed us to trigger our GA at a very good point of time for this kind of game and helped with safe troop transport over ocean. (No need to make a long detour along coast/sea tiles, as we would have had to with Caravels.)
So for this game Portugal was just perfect.
 
Lanzelot said:
Yes, England is actually pretty strong on most maps.

I think a "worst civ" does not exist, because it all depends on the circumstances and on what kind of victory you are trying to achieve. Some civs are good at fast research, others at ultra-aggressive military victories and others at fast cultural victories. Some are good on Archipelagos, others are good on Pangaeas. But I don't think that any civ is "bad at everything".
Click to expand...

I agree that there's no useless civilization. However, you can still make comparisons across civilizations to determine their relative worth. I think that to determine the worth of a civilization, you need to consider (1) how flexible the civilization is (i.e., is the civilization useful on most settings in most situtations, or is it only useful in a particular niche) and (2) how well the AI can use the civilization.

By those measures, I would still argue that the Portuguese are the worst. They seem to only be useful in certain niches like the one you described, and in my experience the AI is awful with them.

As you've highlighted, there are some specialized circumstances in which a human player would be better served by using the Portuguese than other civilizations. That is atypical, however. Generally, civilizations like the Maya, Iroquois, Celts, Chinese, and, if you want Seafaring, the Dutch, are better civilizations to use if you want an easier victory.
 
Egypt: quite ok UU and the "Industrious" trait is very strong for any type of game. "Religious" can be weak or strong, depending on what you are trying to do. So I would say "above average".

In my opinion, the weakest traits for a "general purpose" game are religious, militaristic and expansionist. (All the other traits are more or less "good for everything".) So if you define a "bad" or "worst" civ as one that depends the most upon getting the right circumstances, then it would have to be one that has two of these three traits and a bad UU on top of it. That gives us 4 choices:
  • Religious & Expansionist: Arabia. But Arabia has a very good UU.
  • Religious & Militaristic: Japan. Again a quite good UU.
  • Militaristic & Expansionist: Mongolia and Zululand. I like the Keshik better than the Impi (even though the Keshik is not as strong as the Ansar or the Samurai: on a map without mountains, it's just a "weaker Knight" that even cannot be produced with the disconnect/connect strategy, because it does not require iron...:()

So ok, you got me nailed down finally: the worst civ is... :band:
The Zulus
 
But then Zulus are great for early quick victories on smaller maps, because their Unique Unit is a Spearman with 2 movement and a retreat chance. I bet if you started on a smaller map at the higher difficulties and saw Shaka was your neighbour you'd wish it was someone else... They also get armies easier. If you're ignoring science/religion and going for a military win even on a larger Pangea then they're not a bad option at all. Black is also the coolest colour and will never be confused with any other civ ;)
 
Buttercup said:
But then Zulus are great for early quick victories on smaller maps, because their Unique Unit is a Spearman with 2 movement and a retreat chance. I bet if you started on a smaller map at the higher difficulties and saw Shaka was your neighbour you'd wish it was someone else... They also get armies easier. If you're ignoring science/religion and going for a military win even on a larger Pangea then they're not a bad option at all. Black is also the coolest colour and will never be confused with any other civ ;)
Click to expand...

For a fast Conquest, I'll prefer Aztecs with their ultra cheap uu and it's extra movement. Next is Persia with the strong immortals and then the celts with the galactic swordsman. A defensive uu isn't really good for a Conquest but can help at times where you're being crushed by the AI stacks of soldiers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SuedecivIII
Revitalizing Civ 3 Speedrunning
Replies
12
Views
740
SuedecivIII
SuedecivIII
M
Civ Old Timer Has Questions About Civ3... Answer Them Please!
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
5K
Buttercup
B
P
[C3C] General civ3 strategies - improving my game
Replies
11
Views
2K
alfa156
A
Fergei
The impact of modified settings (India, Emperor, 31 Civ, Continents)
Replies
10
Views
808
Fergei
Fergei
C
[BNW] Unlock existing UU & UB for an existing civ ( especially shoshone pathfinder )
Replies
4
Views
276
Caocao84
C
Top Bottom