gormtheold
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Messages
- 39
I was both a fanatical Civ I and Civ II player (also MOO and MOO2, and, CTP 1 and 2, which I never got into). The problem I found with both MOO2 and the CTP games is that you are either doomed or reach a level where you are unbeatable early on (for instance, in MOO2, the first one that can build a large fleet-in MOO I, you could build a ton of missile bases and hang on until you were ready to move out). CTP 2-first to tanks, build 8 or 12, conquer the world)
I was a King level player. I am struggling at regent but learning. Some have complained in just a CIV 2 with better graphics, some say it is too different.
My strategy of choice in CIV I was to build a ton of chariots, then build cathedrals while still in despotism. conquer as much as I could, then hunker down until tanks and airplanes. I think it was a common strategy because they worked to eliminate it in CIv II (in which, I used all four governments, never used monarchy or republic in Civ 1). Kind of like a golf course where you're supposed to use every club in the bag.
Civ 3 seems intentionally designed to require large empires, but not make them a piece of cake, otherwise it'd all be over (like in CTP or MOO2). And, in fact, large empires are hard (in human history, they always break up eventually). Once more, it seems a conscious decision to penalize the strategy of choice in the last game. Both corruption and culture are designed to give the big empires problems.
I deal with the mighty phalanx problem by doubling the hit points. To my chagrin. In my last game, I was running the table with my Chinese Riders and ran out of continent. By the time I was ready to attack across the straits (Japanese and English, both tiny) I found myself attacking infantry with cavalry. Believe me, it worked the way it should have. I couldn't even overwhelm them.
I confess I add more resources. That's what the editor is for. They're there for the AI as well.
In my first win at warlord, I had a world war--everybody in on one side or the other and one of the ones on the losing side changing over to the winner at an opportune moment. Never happened on Civ I or Civ II. Fascinating. My Chinese game would have succeeded even with my cavalry (I was no 1 and industrious and could have churned out dozens of them) had I not neglected to build enough ironclads to control the strait. Interesting enough, the two little Civilizations hanging on doggedly on their islands were the English and the Japanese. They did it with navies (seems to me the real life British did something rather similar).
So far, I find it fascinating. At higher levels (admittedly, regent is as high as I've gotten, and my two wins were 1) lucky and 2) low score, because hemmed in until tanks and then spread all over the place but too late to raise the average score much) choices have to be made (that's the point). In Civ I or Civ II, you could get a little tech lead and then build all the wonders (at least, the important ones, Hoover Dam remains the one wonder essential in all three). I've found a bit of strategy in Shakespeare's theatre, which I bypass. Get free artistry and sell it to all the AI's. I've managed to catch up five or six techs that way.
Right now I'm trying the Babs for a culture win (not on points, just maybe some assimilation at the edges before a thrust outward with knights, then a little further with cavalry, and further still with tanks). I was really kicking butt with my strategy and even building all the wonders like in I or 2, when I remembered my kid had been playing the game last night and got a sickly suspicion. I saved the game to reload to see and yup, I was playing at Chieftain. Well, at least I can kick butt at chieftain. The first time I tried (unlike Civ 2) I couldn't. So I've started again with the babs. If my continent had just been a little bit bigger with those Riders.
Incidentally, I learned about the air superiority bug on line, having never seen it (though i did have one game after I learned that I just didn't build any fighters and since I was winning anyway and the AI seemed intent on bombing improvements, since I had plenty of workers, I just took it). Don't know if they fixed it (even though one of my regent wins was with the patch). I try to make it a policy not to fight any wars with people with bombers. Had the Taliban adopted that policy, they could still be cheerfully oppressing Afghanistan.
So I like it. Some of the simplification (getting rid of farmland, stock markets, etc) I like. Wish the damned workers wouldn't cut down all the trees so I could automate them--have done games where I set them to only be able to cut down trees with integrated defense--but they still don't perform to my liking so I still gotta ride herd on them, just like settlers and engineers.
People complain the end game is tedious. Doesn't anybody remember, having the AI down to one city of one civ by 1850 and then spending the next two hundred years putting cities on every available square and irrigating and mining and railroading for what almost seemed like a real world two hundred years to get your 600%.
It is what it is. Civ I strategies didn't work on 2 and Civ 2 strategies don't work on 3. Tastes differ. I like it. So the freaking lines disappear. I've had greater crises to deal with in my life.
I was a King level player. I am struggling at regent but learning. Some have complained in just a CIV 2 with better graphics, some say it is too different.
My strategy of choice in CIV I was to build a ton of chariots, then build cathedrals while still in despotism. conquer as much as I could, then hunker down until tanks and airplanes. I think it was a common strategy because they worked to eliminate it in CIv II (in which, I used all four governments, never used monarchy or republic in Civ 1). Kind of like a golf course where you're supposed to use every club in the bag.
Civ 3 seems intentionally designed to require large empires, but not make them a piece of cake, otherwise it'd all be over (like in CTP or MOO2). And, in fact, large empires are hard (in human history, they always break up eventually). Once more, it seems a conscious decision to penalize the strategy of choice in the last game. Both corruption and culture are designed to give the big empires problems.
I deal with the mighty phalanx problem by doubling the hit points. To my chagrin. In my last game, I was running the table with my Chinese Riders and ran out of continent. By the time I was ready to attack across the straits (Japanese and English, both tiny) I found myself attacking infantry with cavalry. Believe me, it worked the way it should have. I couldn't even overwhelm them.
I confess I add more resources. That's what the editor is for. They're there for the AI as well.
In my first win at warlord, I had a world war--everybody in on one side or the other and one of the ones on the losing side changing over to the winner at an opportune moment. Never happened on Civ I or Civ II. Fascinating. My Chinese game would have succeeded even with my cavalry (I was no 1 and industrious and could have churned out dozens of them) had I not neglected to build enough ironclads to control the strait. Interesting enough, the two little Civilizations hanging on doggedly on their islands were the English and the Japanese. They did it with navies (seems to me the real life British did something rather similar).
So far, I find it fascinating. At higher levels (admittedly, regent is as high as I've gotten, and my two wins were 1) lucky and 2) low score, because hemmed in until tanks and then spread all over the place but too late to raise the average score much) choices have to be made (that's the point). In Civ I or Civ II, you could get a little tech lead and then build all the wonders (at least, the important ones, Hoover Dam remains the one wonder essential in all three). I've found a bit of strategy in Shakespeare's theatre, which I bypass. Get free artistry and sell it to all the AI's. I've managed to catch up five or six techs that way.
Right now I'm trying the Babs for a culture win (not on points, just maybe some assimilation at the edges before a thrust outward with knights, then a little further with cavalry, and further still with tanks). I was really kicking butt with my strategy and even building all the wonders like in I or 2, when I remembered my kid had been playing the game last night and got a sickly suspicion. I saved the game to reload to see and yup, I was playing at Chieftain. Well, at least I can kick butt at chieftain. The first time I tried (unlike Civ 2) I couldn't. So I've started again with the babs. If my continent had just been a little bit bigger with those Riders.
Incidentally, I learned about the air superiority bug on line, having never seen it (though i did have one game after I learned that I just didn't build any fighters and since I was winning anyway and the AI seemed intent on bombing improvements, since I had plenty of workers, I just took it). Don't know if they fixed it (even though one of my regent wins was with the patch). I try to make it a policy not to fight any wars with people with bombers. Had the Taliban adopted that policy, they could still be cheerfully oppressing Afghanistan.
So I like it. Some of the simplification (getting rid of farmland, stock markets, etc) I like. Wish the damned workers wouldn't cut down all the trees so I could automate them--have done games where I set them to only be able to cut down trees with integrated defense--but they still don't perform to my liking so I still gotta ride herd on them, just like settlers and engineers.
People complain the end game is tedious. Doesn't anybody remember, having the AI down to one city of one civ by 1850 and then spending the next two hundred years putting cities on every available square and irrigating and mining and railroading for what almost seemed like a real world two hundred years to get your 600%.
It is what it is. Civ I strategies didn't work on 2 and Civ 2 strategies don't work on 3. Tastes differ. I like it. So the freaking lines disappear. I've had greater crises to deal with in my life.
