Back to the Future: 10 Problems with Civ3

[alin1975]

Glad to hear that even smaller, less significant states like the USA could stand a chance in the harsh yet equal-opportunity world of Civ 3.

In a world with a dozen or so players, many of which get eliminated or beaten into a corner, then yes, the land area of the USA is not all that much.

The argument was that Civ 3 was all about continuous expansion and my point was that it was very possible to win games against much larger nations. I used North America as an example, but you could actually get away with considerably smaller, while having far bigger kingdoms (with larger armies) on the board.

At the same time, it was also very possible to win as this "far bigger kingdom", and world conquest was a viable (although time consuming) option, even on the huge maps.

So yes, just from this perspective Civ 3 was as equal opportunity as it gets.

 

[anti_strunt]

In a world with a dozen or so players, many of which get eliminated or beaten into a corner, then yes, the land area of the USA is not all that much.

The argument was that Civ 3 was all about continuous expansion and my point was that it was very possible to win games against much larger nations. I used North America as an example, but you could actually get away with considerably smaller, while having far bigger kingdoms (with larger armies) on the board.

At the same time, it was also very possible to win as this "far bigger kingdom", and world conquest was a viable (although time consuming) option, even on the huge maps.

So yes, just from this perspective Civ 3 was as equal opportunity as it gets.

True enough, but more so or even as equal as Civ 4 (or even 5)? I would think a smaller empire would stand a greater (relative) chance in both the latter games than in 3, but I never got very good at it, so maybe that's just my experience...

(Heh, imagine the real world with half a dozen oversized USA's competing for territory... )

 

[Abegweit]

True enough, but more so or even as much as equal as Civ 4, or even 5? I would think a smaller empire would stand a greater (relative) chance in both the latter games than in 3, but I never got very good at it, so maybe that's just my experience...

A normal game of Civ III starts with a core of maybe 15 cities and grows from there. In many Civ 4 or 5 games, you never get close to the number - especially if going for the latter's horribly-designed cultural victory.

 

[Horizons]

I always thought Civ4 'emulated' ICS with cottages (towns) rather than cities.

 

[Dermo]

3. heal 2hp/turn or at least have option of building with bonus to city regen.

I don't know if this has been addressed in a mod or not, but instead of adding another building (that will take forever to construct), what about giving workers the ability to repair city defenses?

 

[alin1975]

True enough, but more so or even as equal as Civ 4 (or even 5)? I would think a smaller empire would stand a greater (relative) chance in both the latter games than in 3, but I never got very good at it, so maybe that's just my experience...

(Heh, imagine the real world with half a dozen oversized USA's competing for territory... )

I cant speak for Civ 4 beause I really hated that game. If it was quite small it certainly would in Civ 5, but the problem is that Civ 5, as far as I can tell, is completely skewed against world conquest - at least on the huge maps (which is all I play). So imo, Civ 3 was better in its ability to accomodate both the pure warmonger and the space victory (or what not).

And yeah, wonderful world that would be And if the odd smaller kingdom existed they would go to them occassionally and demand tribute

 

[Lone Wolf]

The argument was that Civ 3 was all about continuous expansion and my point was that it was very possible to win games against much larger nations. I used North America as an example, but you could actually get away with considerably smaller, while having far bigger kingdoms (with larger armies) on the board.

The point isn't really that, the point was that expansion was always better then non-expansion. Good players can win a game of any Civ while placing numerous restrictions on themselves. I bet a good player of Civ3 can win a game without building a single road, doesn't mean that the game didn't favour building roads everywhere.

 

[alin1975]

The point isn't really that, the point was that expansion was always better then non-expansion. Good players can win a game of any Civ while placing numerous restrictions on themselves. I bet a good player of Civ3 can win a game without building a single road, doesn't mean that the game didn't favour building roads everywhere.

But thats not entirely true. If you played as a democracy going for a space win, then you would benefit from closing yourself off and devoting more resources to science once your kingdom reached a certain size. This was even more true if you were on a separate continent since anything you would conquer elsewhere would produce virtually nada. So expansion was not always better than non-expansion.

This allowed for different equally viable strategies with different governments. So I would not consider it a disadvantage of Civ 3, particularly when compared to the absurd restrictions of Civ 5 (again, no comment on Civ 4, I threw it away within a week from purchase).

 

[Abegweit]

The point isn't really that, the point was that expansion was always better then non-expansion. Good players can win a game of any Civ while placing numerous restrictions on themselves. I bet a good player of Civ3 can win a game without building a single road, doesn't mean that the game didn't favour building roads everywhere.

That's a pretty huge restriction in that game. Two guys, Sirian and Charis I think, played a game like that. They called it "Finally Ready for Regent".

 

[katipunero]

I always thought Civ4 'emulated' ICS with cottages (towns) rather than cities.

true true.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If you played as a democracy going for a space win, then you would benefit from closing yourself off and devoting more resources to science once your kingdom reached a certain size. This was even more true if you were on a separate continent since anything you would conquer elsewhere would produce virtually nada. So expansion was not always better than non-expansion.

It's true that corruption limited the benefits of expansion in Civ3, but this was perhaps the most unfun mechanics in that game.

 

[PaperBeetle]

LordTC was actually speaking about Civ5. When playing Civ5 multi-player at the higher difficulties, a start with gold, silver, or gems is very advantageous, as you can get those resources hooked up and reap their happiness bonuses on the way to the military techs.

It's obviously less of an advantage in a single-player game, as Civ5 is ridiculously easy even at the higher levels. The only change is more tedium.

I'm half tempted to put the last line LordTC says here as a profile quote.

Oh yeah, Civ5, I'm with ya now - I'd got so carried away daydreaming about Civ3 that I completely forgotten about that game!

 

[alin1975]

It's true that corruption limited the benefits of expansion in Civ3, but this was perhaps the most unfun mechanics in that game.

I partially agree with you. I am just in my confused stage on that one lol. I mean, yeah at the time I found it annoying, but now I find myself longing for it instead of the alternative. I also loved having a very strong core of cities surrounding my capital. My super-production centre so to speak

But anyway, as I said before, I am in no way claiming Civ 3 was flawless... not by a long shot. For one thing the AI was as irritating as a genital wart. But somehow I still had a lot more fun with it.