GeneralAchilles
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2018
- Messages
- 59
what level do you play at?
- Thread starter robbus
- Start date
I play monarch on a large earth map now with 31 opponents (some are gone now) but I notice that if I get a good start early on I become uncatchable and by the mid ages I'm runnaway. I control all geater europe and am halfway the industrious age.
From 700 to 900 ad seemingly only 1 civ (china) developped a bit into the middle ages; America, africa and parts of asia do nothing but being stuck in the stone age. I wonder why.
From 700 to 900 ad seemingly only 1 civ (china) developped a bit into the middle ages; America, africa and parts of asia do nothing but being stuck in the stone age. I wonder why.
Last edited:
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
I got Civ III in 2006 and made it to Monarch in 2011 and I've never advanced any further.
Just wondering, which map is that?
Just wondering, which map is that?
TK Earth standard1HN 100x100 but i have adjusted it quite a bit to fix my mod.
Some luxuries are only found on another continent for example.
... about what? Game looks fine: you are #1 in population, almost on tech parity and equal in military compared to your most dangerous rivals, Persia and France.
Any victory should still be possible (except maybe UN: the Persians are pretty pissed and your reputation doesn't seem to be the best...)
Big question: how did Edo become your capital?? You didn't lose Kyoto at some point...?
Any victory should still be possible (except maybe UN: the Persians are pretty pissed and your reputation doesn't seem to be the best...)
Big question: how did Edo become your capital?? You didn't lose Kyoto at some point...?
darski
Regent in Training
I still play at Regent. It is the level that is most comfortable and I can enjoy the game with little stress. I actually lose/abandon many games because my Capitol does not have the tiles I need or my secong city has nowhere to be placed. I still enjoy the game and the RNG gods (who hate me) can't do to much harm at regent. 
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 3
I generally play Regent, but I try my hand at Monarch once in a while. I’ve won on Monarch, but usually just abandon the game once it’s clear I’m losing badly.
I haven't finished more than a handful of Civ3 games over the years, so I'm right there with you.
Due to watching a stream, my desire to play Civ3 was re-ignited and I jumped back in at Regent without having played for years. I'm finding it fairly easy so far.
My biggest problem with Civ3 is that I get too bogged down in micromanagement (more than I need to win the game) and games take very long for me to finish. But squeezing extra drops out of your empire is part of the fun!
I've beat Civ 3 on Deity but Emperor is usually hard enough especially if you don't want to micromanage everything (having 50 fully corrupted tundra coast cities full of taxmen and scientists, etc). It can get annoying if you have to keep ferrying units across to other continents to deal with that one civ who won't give up but spams submarines or something. ICBMs tend to help in dealing with those kind of civs.
The best advice is for Civ 3 is to carpet the continent with cities. There's little downside and a lot of upside. Also, make a Stack of Doom because that's how you stop enemies from blowing up your catapults. When you get to the modern age spam bombers. Tanks/armor are a huge edge if you get to them early enough.
It very much helps to have a civ with good early game units. Conquering a civ or two with Persian immortals (or some other UU that gives you a huge edge early one) is a great way to get rid of competition and get some decent cities.
There was a map I once had that was realistic Earth. I think it came with PtW. So Europe was a complete blood bath with a lot of single or two city civs while China, India, etc, started off unified with many cities. The problem is the way the game handles reputation. You can't conquer Europe without destroying 10+ civs, unless you want to stay a landlocked one city civ with 6-7 workable tiles. But if you do nobody will ever be your friend ever again, so it was annoying to unify most of the continent so you get up to a decently sized empire and then end up in multiple forever wars vs some civ that is ahead of you in tech because they didn't spend 2000 years warring like Persia/India/China/etc.
The best advice is for Civ 3 is to carpet the continent with cities. There's little downside and a lot of upside. Also, make a Stack of Doom because that's how you stop enemies from blowing up your catapults. When you get to the modern age spam bombers. Tanks/armor are a huge edge if you get to them early enough.
It very much helps to have a civ with good early game units. Conquering a civ or two with Persian immortals (or some other UU that gives you a huge edge early one) is a great way to get rid of competition and get some decent cities.
There was a map I once had that was realistic Earth. I think it came with PtW. So Europe was a complete blood bath with a lot of single or two city civs while China, India, etc, started off unified with many cities. The problem is the way the game handles reputation. You can't conquer Europe without destroying 10+ civs, unless you want to stay a landlocked one city civ with 6-7 workable tiles. But if you do nobody will ever be your friend ever again, so it was annoying to unify most of the continent so you get up to a decently sized empire and then end up in multiple forever wars vs some civ that is ahead of you in tech because they didn't spend 2000 years warring like Persia/India/China/etc.
ThERat
Deity
demigod as AW, that's a real challenge
robbus
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 208
civ2 assist is a must for reducing micromanagement. If nothing else it tells you when cities are about to riot. You nay have a little trouble installing on win 10 though. Although I just installed it on win10 and seems to work
Oh I use CivAssist II and find it amazing. I haven't been able to make it auto-load saves on Windows 10, though, so I find myself manually loading a save once in a while.
Yet I still spend a lot of time micromanaging. My current Regent game is sitting at almost 13 hours already on turn 161.
I do make sure to micromanage the essentials every turn; worker actions, city builds, avoiding wasting shields and food, tile shuffling between cities, etc. I'll scout the map for cities growing or completing something in a few turns to see if I can squeeze out a bit of extra yield. I'll also make sure not to waste beakers on the last few turns of research.
I don't time the completion of granaries and aqueducts, though. It's really not needed at this difficulty level, but it might be something to do when/if I play a game on a more difficult level.
Last edited:
WeirdoJoker
King
I have not yet been able to successfully install CAII on Win10. I cannot even load the Saves, in fact.
However, as a result, I have started looking at the F1 screen from time to time (depending on circumstances) to see what the happy/unhappy face ratios are by quickly scrolling through the cities, and when unhappies outnumber happies the city is about to go crazy and I can make adjustments. I would still rather have CAII for other reasons, but at least I can deal with that issue...
Mostly Monarch. I've played and won at Emperor, but it's a lot of work and usually I'm happier playing at Monarch.
Though I probably should change my default to something in-between. There are a lot of changes between those levels: one happy citizen instead of two, the AI gets a worker and three more combat units to start out, and a very high unit support bonus to name a few.
Though I probably should change my default to something in-between. There are a lot of changes between those levels: one happy citizen instead of two, the AI gets a worker and three more combat units to start out, and a very high unit support bonus to name a few.
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
Why haven't I posted in this thread already?
I play most of my solo epic-games (including mods, e.g. CCM) at Emperor these days (using CivAssist). Lose some, win more. I've made a few attempts at solo epic DG so far, and (apart from 1 curb-stomp on Turn 20) mostly managed to survive a lot longer than I expected to, but have not yet reached the point of feeling comfortable/ in control at that level. Possibly I gave up some of those games too soon, but when Bismarck has marched over most of a Pan-map and is into the Moderns (and probably building his Ship) while 'Dora (me) is still Industrial, the game is effectively lost one way or another, and likely sooner rather than later...
Apart from my first attempt at "Mesopotamia" (as the Babs, at Regent), all of my Conquest-Scenario attempts have been at Emp as well, albeit with a generally higher failure-/quit-rate than for the epics.
I play most of my solo epic-games (including mods, e.g. CCM) at Emperor these days (using CivAssist). Lose some, win more. I've made a few attempts at solo epic DG so far, and (apart from 1 curb-stomp on Turn 20) mostly managed to survive a lot longer than I expected to, but have not yet reached the point of feeling comfortable/ in control at that level. Possibly I gave up some of those games too soon, but when Bismarck has marched over most of a Pan-map and is into the Moderns (and probably building his Ship) while 'Dora (me) is still Industrial, the game is effectively lost one way or another, and likely sooner rather than later...
Apart from my first attempt at "Mesopotamia" (as the Babs, at Regent), all of my Conquest-Scenario attempts have been at Emp as well, albeit with a generally higher failure-/quit-rate than for the epics.
Spoiler Conquest-Scenario results to date... :
Last edited:
robbus
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 208
Are you someone interested in history or more just playing as a different feel?
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
Yes, I suppose I am broadly interested in how we (humans) got to where we are today, although I am probably more interested in where we might be going tomorrow (my preferred VC for epic-games is the Spaceship!).
But if you're asking, "Do I believe that Civ3 should aim to recreate actual history as (we believe that) it happened?", then no. So long as I can engineer a decent shot of winning with any given tribe on any given map (whether epic or scenario), it makes no (emotional) difference to me which tribe I play, nor whether or not that tribe was one of the historical 'winners' on Earth. And likewise, while I respect the thought and work that went into designing epic-mods like @Rhyes'(?), which were/are specifically intended to 'force' the AI-Civs into recreating human history in Civ3-form, for me it seems a little pointless to play any game which has an essentially foregone conclusion. Why would I want to play as the Romans, knowing that my Empire was likely to collapse in the early centuries AD; or as the Aztecs, knowing that my people were going to be genocided by the Spanish in the 1500s?
That seems akin to a novice chess player — and one who feels no particular inclination to improve — sitting down to face a Grandmaster: the outcome is predictable from the start, but neither player is likely to be entertained by the process, which (IMO) defeats the whole point of playing a game.
History has always been my great hobby, most of the books I read these days are about various periods in history. Consequently I enjoy playing the "historic" scenarios, like the ones that come with C3C (especially Napoleon) or the ones here in that forum like Age of Imperialism. But not in order to "recreate" history. I agree completely with tjs: there is no point in just recreating what actually happened. For me the big fun is to explore "alternate histories", e.g. what would have happened, if this or that junction in history had gone the other way, or if mankind wouldn't have been as stupid at that point as it actually has been...
And I like to switch personalities as well, on one day I might enjoy playing the "good" side, on another day I might play the evil side...
But most of all I enjoy playing the underdog (and winning against all odds... ) That reminds me, I always wanted to play Age of Discovery as the Aztecs and conquer Europe...
And I like to switch personalities as well, on one day I might enjoy playing the "good" side, on another day I might play the evil side...
But most of all I enjoy playing the underdog (and winning against all odds... ) That reminds me, I always wanted to play Age of Discovery as the Aztecs and conquer Europe...
lummoxybez
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 19
Moved from Regent to Monarch today and am currently in an awesome game.
Playing as the Persians and I’ve blitzed Egypt with Immortals. Now I’d like to turtle until Chivalry and finish off Babylon.
I found that pushing oneself a little bit and increasing the diff makes for a much more enjoyable game.
I may feel differently if I’d had a poor start and got banjaxed though.
Playing as the Persians and I’ve blitzed Egypt with Immortals. Now I’d like to turtle until Chivalry and finish off Babylon.
I found that pushing oneself a little bit and increasing the diff makes for a much more enjoyable game.
I may feel differently if I’d had a poor start and got banjaxed though.
Similar threads
