vranjesevic
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2001
- Messages
- 14
I bought Civ 3 yesterday.
I feel a bit cheated. It is obvious that Civ 3, as-is, ins't what it is supposed to be.
So many good features that where present in Civ 2 are gone in Civ3!!!!!
No scenarios, no fixed starting places for civilisations, no useful editor (there is nothing to be edited in "editor"), etc, etc...
How am I supposed to win, say, WWII - when there is no such a scenario? What is purpose as starting like German - in Africa?
Anyway, I have decided to play Civ 3 on all-the-hardest settings and then I am content until Civ 4.
As far I have seen, AI isn't much smarter, it only has even greather production and combat bonuses over human player.
I played both Civ 1 and Civ 2 with all the toughest options (Diety level, raging barbarians, max no of civs, big map) and I developed winning strategies to that exstent that it had became sure-thing that I will prevail on the end.
But Civ 3 will be much harder nut to crack (I am just speaking about diety level, that is the only thing I am interested in). Settlers take 2 populations out, workers take 1. This will make very hard to keep expanding. Tex revenues spent to combat unhappines on diety level causes virtual standstill in science research, that takes for ever, anyway (around 20-30 turns per advacement on the beggining).
There is no fundamentalism (unhappiens eliminating) goverment. Computer players are demanding unresonable things in diplomacy (2-3 to 1 ratio of worth in deals) so dealing with them can hardly be much beneficial.
I played only one game; I seemed to be doing quite fine, as game allows it at all. However, I just can't keep the pace (and that isn't much surprising).
I have decided to start another game, but before that I would like to hear any real ideas/experiences about diety level and Civ3.
I have idea to just try to conquer as much land I can, while beeing very humble to computer opponents so that they leave me alone, survive until I somwhow reach relativelly modern state (obtain modern technology) and then build effective offensive military and then start taking them out one-by-one, starting with weakest neighbor (that is about what I used to do in Civ2).
I am sure that winning strategy for diety level in Civ3 must have same basic idea, since I do not see how you can build enough large army to take anyone out early on (diety level, at least).
Also, on diety level you need huge cvalitative/cvantitative supperiority for effective invasion (I haven't invalded anyone jet, but I would say 3-4 to 1 ratio, maybe even more judging by the posts here).
Also, does taking enemy capital cause split of the empire and civil war (like in Civ2)?
By the way, when I say "win" I mean "military victory" - I am not interested in any other ways of "winning".
I feel a bit cheated. It is obvious that Civ 3, as-is, ins't what it is supposed to be.
So many good features that where present in Civ 2 are gone in Civ3!!!!!
No scenarios, no fixed starting places for civilisations, no useful editor (there is nothing to be edited in "editor"), etc, etc...
How am I supposed to win, say, WWII - when there is no such a scenario? What is purpose as starting like German - in Africa?
Anyway, I have decided to play Civ 3 on all-the-hardest settings and then I am content until Civ 4.
As far I have seen, AI isn't much smarter, it only has even greather production and combat bonuses over human player.
I played both Civ 1 and Civ 2 with all the toughest options (Diety level, raging barbarians, max no of civs, big map) and I developed winning strategies to that exstent that it had became sure-thing that I will prevail on the end.
But Civ 3 will be much harder nut to crack (I am just speaking about diety level, that is the only thing I am interested in). Settlers take 2 populations out, workers take 1. This will make very hard to keep expanding. Tex revenues spent to combat unhappines on diety level causes virtual standstill in science research, that takes for ever, anyway (around 20-30 turns per advacement on the beggining).
There is no fundamentalism (unhappiens eliminating) goverment. Computer players are demanding unresonable things in diplomacy (2-3 to 1 ratio of worth in deals) so dealing with them can hardly be much beneficial.
I played only one game; I seemed to be doing quite fine, as game allows it at all. However, I just can't keep the pace (and that isn't much surprising).
I have decided to start another game, but before that I would like to hear any real ideas/experiences about diety level and Civ3.
I have idea to just try to conquer as much land I can, while beeing very humble to computer opponents so that they leave me alone, survive until I somwhow reach relativelly modern state (obtain modern technology) and then build effective offensive military and then start taking them out one-by-one, starting with weakest neighbor (that is about what I used to do in Civ2).
I am sure that winning strategy for diety level in Civ3 must have same basic idea, since I do not see how you can build enough large army to take anyone out early on (diety level, at least).
Also, on diety level you need huge cvalitative/cvantitative supperiority for effective invasion (I haven't invalded anyone jet, but I would say 3-4 to 1 ratio, maybe even more judging by the posts here).
Also, does taking enemy capital cause split of the empire and civil war (like in Civ2)?
By the way, when I say "win" I mean "military victory" - I am not interested in any other ways of "winning".
) that in civ3 these other avenues will fill in the gaps you seek to fill in your strategy. If it really is an improvement, you may need to consider that the other elements of citizen happiness will be a necessary addition to your approach. Keep us posted as to how you progress!
