Beginning game strategy

[Monte Pyton]

i completely agree. i have never even heard of the other civ games (other than #2) before, and i cant wait to see the completely different setup of this game. it seems that a lot of new things make it more of an actual empire--

 

[Ilspana]

Originally posted by WUM
Hey!
very interesting, never noticed this stupidity!
Everybody know that people were writing stuff in pictures before the very abstract alphabet was used!
I wonder wether this is really a mistake or whether it has a unknown reason.

Drawing, not writing. Drawing is a form of expression and the exchange of ideas, true. However, i beleive what the civ people mean by writing is the exchange of ideas through literature by using a refined language, and they can't do that without an alphabet of some sort. People who used pictures to communicate ideas weren't making use of a particular language, thus the ideas they tried to convey were vague. Writing is a much clearer form of communication provided that the reader understood the language it was written in, and could recognise the symbols of it's alphabet.

 

[Serg]

Originally posted by JavalTigar
I can't believe that some people are going to start on prince level. I think people are taking for granted the nature of this game. Just because Civ is the title, doesn't mean it is like Civ 2.
I really think all strategies are going to have to go back to the drawing board. For one thing, while you are all thinking about which advantages would be best to start with and how to use them wisely, it doesn't appear that anyone is analyzing the fact that your neighbor is an mil/sci Civ and is currently marching his faster special units straight for your jugular. I personally will start slow and let the computer tips give me the incite into the AI strategies.

If I meet many difficulties in the game on Prince level I step back to the first level. It is possible in Civ3 the governor will give good advices but in Civ1&2 its advices were wrong.

 

[WUM]

Early meso-american civs prove you wrong, i state.
As do early hieroglyphs and the first asian/chinese characters (not the characters of today that consist of multiple pictures).
I wouldn´t think of these as an alphabet, but it was definitely wrinting and giving expression to ideas to communicate those ideas in a certain way, so others could grasp the ideas by reading the pictures.

Originally posted by Ilspana


Drawing, not writing. Drawing is a form of expression and the exchange of ideas, true. However, i beleive what the civ people mean by writing is the exchange of ideas through literature by using a refined language, and they can't do that without an alphabet of some sort. People who used pictures to communicate ideas weren't making use of a particular language, thus the ideas they tried to convey were vague. Writing is a much clearer form of communication provided that the reader understood the language it was written in, and could recognise the symbols of it's alphabet.

 

[WUM]

Though your arguments seem to make sense, i disagree.
On prince-level completely different strategies are needed, compared to chieftainlevel for instance. So starting to easy will be a waste of time.

I rather lose (yes indeed) my first copple of games and then use my newly thought of strategies than winning the first game on a simple level and having to start all over again on prince-lever afterwards!
I don´t think it will be easy to start on this level, but i take my chances. and hey, starting on an easier level is always a theoretical possibility...

Originally posted by JavalTigar
I can't believe that some people are going to start on prince level. [/QUOTE

 

[Aristonico]

I think I will start as always... beign smashed by the AI in the first game sob

 

[Ilspana]

Originally posted by WUM
Early meso-american civs prove you wrong, i state.
As do early hieroglyphs and the first asian/chinese characters (not the characters of today that consist of multiple pictures).
I wouldn´t think of these as an alphabet, but it was definitely wrinting and giving expression to ideas to communicate those ideas in a certain way, so others could grasp the ideas by reading the pictures.

But thats just drawing. Its an artform that expresses ideas, but not in a clear way. No one would send a letter or write a book with just pictures in it. That wouldn't get any CLEAR idea of what the literature was trying to convey. I see where you're coming from, but I really dont think thats what the Civ people have in mind when they think of writing.

Now your point, as I see it, is that people wrote with pictures that had nothing to do with language, and that may be true. But, what i dont think you realise is that the modern alphabet came from pictures of animals and are meant to convey an idea baout sounds that those creatures make, corresponding to whatever language the poeple using the alphabet used. Now this may be different from simply using pictures to convey a broader idea, but its basically the same thing. Using a series of pictures or symbols to communicate an idea is writing.

I don't know, i guess we could argue about this forever. It all depends on what your idea of an alphabet is. A series of symbols that imply a certain meaning, a series of symbols that convey a sound being spoken, or both.

 

[WUM]

Well, this is actually exactly what they did!

Originally posted by Ilspana

No one would send a letter or write a book with just pictures in it.

And it´s not about literature, it´s about Alphabet and Writing.

Originally posted by Ilspana

That wouldn't get any CLEAR idea of what the literature was trying to convey.

But okay, we just disagree. To conclude this, another quote:

Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.
- Mohandas Karamchand [Mahatma] Gandhi (1869-1948)

 

[Ilspana]

yup, ok i can agree to that

as i just edited in my last message i mentioned how it all depends on what your idea of an alphabet is. If you think of an alphabet solely as a way to convey sounds and thus a language, then i agree with your reasoning. Its just my beleif that alphabet can be any symbol that is used in a series to convey an idea.

 

[Typo]

I think I will play Romans for my first game on Prince level. After the intitial problems of getting my first couple of cities setup I will concentrate my research aiming for iron working and mathematics. I may bump into a new civ in this time, probably some crumby puny civ. I will immediately declare war on them, knowing my new legions are about to arrive I discover iron working , suddenly I realise theres no iron anyway near my fledgling empire....MUMMY!!!!

I sense I may need to adjust my tactics

 

[Heffalump]

Was anyone here a CivI player before CivII came out? I found that most of what I knew from CivI carried me through CivII just fine. The biggest problem for me in that first CivII game was deciding which Wonders to build, since the effects of some had been changed, and others were new. Anyway, I played my first CivII game at King level and just barely won via the space race. (Maybe victory got me overly confident because I remember losing my second game to the AI)

I plan to start CivIII at King level and probably play a pretty defensive game the first time. But I think the transition from CivII to CivIII is going to be A LOT HARDER than CivI to CivII.

A lot of very basic game concepts have been reworked or are new, such as trade, resources, culture, minor-level wonders, etc. If I win my first game of CivIII at King level I'll definitely be surprised! But I agree with WUM, it's more fun to play at a challenging level and lose a couple rather than have that first game be too easy.

 

[stravaig]

I agree about the fast start, and the subsequent importance of having an Expansionistic Civ. Since Scientific will also rule the day, the Russians will no doubt be a very popular pick.
But in order to get the most of a quick start, it also seems to me that having a "Golden Age" early on would be a highly important strategy.
Per the developer update regarding civ specifics, a Golden Age begins when you first win a combat with a civ-specific unit, and provides an extra trade and shield per worked tile (allowing for rapid creation of early wonders and settler units - VERY important!).

I don't know if the Russian specific unit has been revealed yet edit: okay, it's the Cossack), but I doubt it will be available early (being upgraded Horsemen or Knights or maybe even Cavalry). Therefore for the quickest quick start strategy, you'll have to give up Scientific in order to have both Expansion and an early Golden Age...
Just a thought.

- Stravaig

 

[goodyhut]

Originally posted by Heffalump
Was anyone here a CivI player before CivII came out? I found that most of what I knew from CivI carried me through CivII just fine...
A lot of very basic game concepts have been reworked or are new, such as trade, resources, culture, minor-level wonders, etc. If I win my first game of CivIII at King level I'll definitely be surprised! But I agree with WUM, it's more fun to play at a challenging level and lose a couple rather than have that first game be too easy.

I played Civ I some on my cousins computer but only a few games. My first (and almost all) civ II games have been against human opponents. Naturally I lost my frist few games but I won a game 2 weeks later against some other players who are still around. : ) Yes Civ III will be more difficult to master but I will try just as hard as I did with Civ II and this time I have a lot more experiance behind me.

<IMG SRC="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/panelec/flag-usa.gif" border=0> Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

 

[Scout]

"Was anyone here a CivI player before CivII came out? "
Yes, I had the same experience. For the most part, CivII fit my CivI strategies (it was almost a relief not to have to center the early game around getting the Pyramids). The ribbon-like land forms were the other striking difference, and that only encouraged some different city placement stragegy -- nothing drastic. I agree that Civ III will call for WAY more adjustment.

"Therefore for the quickest quick start strategy, you'll have to give up Scientific in order to have both Expansion and an early Golden Age... " You may be right, stravaig, but I wonder what the possibilities are for building early wonders that cover both expansion and science. Would that work, or am I misunderstanding the rule?

 

[stravaig]

Scout -

You're not misunderstanding the rule at all, I had failed to consider that option! Thanks for the catch!
At this point, we just don't know.
Also, IMO, one big advantage to an early GA is using it to build wonders - so, building a wonder or two in order to get a GA so that you can build /more/ wonders might be too limiting to your early strategy. Or maybe not.

- Stravaig

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

I'd like to experience the entire game, or at least as much of it as I can my first time out. Therefore, I do not intend to win through anything other than the histrograph method.

I'll play as a perfectionist culture-monger and use my vast fields of wealth to pay my loyal allies to do the fighting for me. I'll focus internally, and try to get the hang of resource trading, and when I'm firmly established, I might launch a campaign or two.

I too think Prince will be a good starting level. Anything below puts the AI in too much of a handicapped position, and doesn't let them play 'their game' which I want to see them do.

But from then on it's death to Zulullia

 

[Serg]

Originally posted by Heffalump
Was anyone here a CivI player before CivII came out? I found that most of what I knew from CivI carried me through CivII just fine. The biggest problem for me in that first CivII game was deciding which Wonders to build, since the effects of some had been changed, and others were new. Anyway, I played my first CivII game at King level and just barely won via the space race. (Maybe victory got me overly confident because I remember losing my second game to the AI)...

I played Civ1 about 2 years before Civ2 and the first game (as Chieftain) was shocked me. I easy won Civ1 as Emperor but in Civ2 my old strategy was failed. Some later I understood Civ2 gives more possibilities for development and my 4-th Civ2 game I played as Deity.
I think the best beginning level for Civ3 is Prince but for players who played Civ2 as Emperor or Deity.
The Russians' feature in Civ3 (Expansionist & Scientific) are seen so good because we are remembering own Civ2 experience. May be in Civ3 the fast start will have slightly different properties.

 

[Madine]

Actually I think that early expansion will be less needed and not as good of a strategy as Civ2. In civ 2 small cities grew faster than big cities. In Civ 3 big cities will grow faster than small cities, so building a settler actually reduces your rate of population growth.

Also since cultural buildings apparently will get a bonus from age it would make sense for a player to build a cultural building before a settler.

I think that expansion will primarily be driven by resources and factors like the aquaduct barrier.

 

[jon26]

by god you're right!

early on expansion will be much harder when the building of a settler requires twice the resources.

i think it will be important to get a fairly good base camp with a couple of bonus resources (extra food and coal) and then build a fast moving unit to explore and get the goodie huts. next up would be either a worker, settler or granary/temple. something like that.

i'm not sure what level my first game will be. i seldom play higher than king/emperor. i find the ai to be cheating too much for my liking so i don't enjoy playing the game. i love founding cities and building my empire more than out duellling the ai on the highest level. i'll probably start at the 2nd or 3rd lowest level just to experience the game for the first time.

 

[DaEezT]

early on expansion will be much harder when the building of a settler requires twice the resources.

yes and no.
losing 2 citizens to a settler is going to make it a bit harder, but on the other hand are units now supported by gold, not resources(hope this goes for settler/worker too) so you'll have 2 food/round more than in Civ2. And i think having to use 2 citizens for a settler also means that a new found city will start with 2 citizens, which is a good thing

One thing will surely give me some trouble : workers. I used to have my settler move from the city where i bult it to the spot where i want to found a new one and o the way build a road + another improvement on every square. I wonder how often i am going to hit "i" or "r" while moving my settler