Civ3 so hard after Civ2: Advice wanted

[John Lenin]

Hello, my first post, and yes I saw all the FAQ threads scattered across the forum. But I have to post my first post at some time, and I couldn't find an exact answer to the exact question I want to ask, so here goes....

First of all, a word or two of explanation. I first got Civ2 in 2001 and became obsessed by it - played it all night and until 1:00 p.m. the following day, on one notorious occasion - and so when I got Civ3(with PTW) about a year ago, and installed it, and played it for a bit... I wasn't too impressed. How could they have done this to the Civ series? I thought.

Anyway: cut to the present day. The night before last I noticed that I still have Civ3 installed on my HD, and knowing that I never gave it a proper chance, I decided to, um, give it a proper chance. Naturally, this time the time was right (it being considerably more than a year now since I last played Civ2, so no 'on the rebound' effect to get over), and I played Civ3 all night, only until 6 a.m. this time though.

It's a great game - and I think I may regret going back to it, as I have done hardly anything since the night before last but play Civ3. I have the next 2 weeks off work as well... Heh. But to my question:

Can any former Civ2 players help me out with what is probably a ridiculous question that has been answered time and time again... It's a gameplay question. Playing Civ3, I still try to use the old Civ2 tactics, e.g. 'build city, build a couple of units, build city walls (or Walls)' - this was a tried and tested formula on Civ2, as the AI rarely sent anything more than two units at a time to try and take your cities. Imagine my surprise, then, to see a 30-strong German army of Elite units sweep down and take one of my best cities, easily brushing aside my five or so defending units.

Was this an anomaly or par for the course? Does Civ3 require you to build massive armies just for basic defence? And what other bad habits from Civ2 should I be getting rid of? And the culture borders thing: what's that all about? I have another civ's size 3 city boxed in by three of my high-culture, high-population cities - shouldn't that other civ's city have joined my civ by now? The manual seems to suggest so.

Thanks for reading and thanks for any replies, even if it's only a moderator, barely suppressing contempt, posting a link that I should have spotted

 

[Dell19]

Welcome to CFC, I'm sure the mods won't mind your thread

Quite a lot of people had to go through the same thing when relearning Civ after Civ3 came out including me although I was never amazingly good at Civ2 and had only just begun to use the caravan exploit for rush building wonders. The units thing is one of the first things I thought of at the start of your post. In Civ2 the diplomat and spy units were key units for bribing the AI cities and essentially allowing you to attack with small armies. However in Civ3 you need much larger armies to take over an empire. 30+ units can be normal in the game but the AI only seems to do this with their offensive units. Also the Germans have the highest aggression setting so they are likely to attack. I don't believe I've seen them rush 90% of their defenders to a border city where I am attacking.

Culture flipping is one of things you have to get used to. Its a percentage risk of flipping so there is no guarentee that a city will ever flip but in theory if its near your capital and far away from theirs and surrounded by your cultural cities it should flip at some point. The far more significant affect is on offensive wars where you take over large cities that already have aquired a large amount of culture and they then flip back to the enemy. This can be ultra annoying if you happen to have half your army in the city.

There are lots of other differences like you now have to gain certain resources like iron and horses which are necessary if you wish to build knights and go on a medieval blitz against your neighbours. However some things remain the same. Once you have your nation linked with rails you have unlimited movement and this is the point when the game can become easier as you no longer have to worry about sneaky landing parties that you didn't see until they landed.

Basically its just a case of learning the new rules and forgetting some of the practices of civ2. Its unlikely that you will be able to build any of the early wonders at monarch and above since you can no longer rush build wonders unless you get leaders which are rare and not to be counted on. There are plenty of guides around the site that should help you to learn the new strategies etc.

 

[mortalmadman]

Welcome to CFC (first time saying that )

Strangly enough, I never thought civ3 was bad. It was orgazmic to me. But I can awnser this I think. First of all, Civ3 has a MUCH better AI. I don't think there's any loopholes, tricks, secrets, or anything else that can give you an advantage. Except that 1 strategie. But you have to set up the game in a specific way. Plus I heard they fixed that strategie so I guess it's out with that. Just start using strategie, not tricks. It's truly a good game, especaly when you get into the feeling of milatary strategist, not loophole cheater (not that that's the only way to win on civ2)

 

[punkbass2000]

There's still plenty of exploits, but yes, the AI is far superior to civ2.

 

[Dell19]

There's still plenty of exploits, but yes, the AI is far superior to civ2.

Like the AI not using artillary or bombers in any numbers and spreading out their troops far more. If I have my entire attacking force whilst the AI spreads their defenders evenly the city will easily fall... The first point is the killer though that tends to guarentee victory once you get a large stack of artillary together and all cities railroaded...

 

[El Justo]

the strangest transition i had to make was w/ the air units and their "immobile" flag.

it just seemed odd at first compared to civ2. however, i quickly got over it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The killer for me was the demise of stack death.

 

[mortalmadman]

OK, AI is still stupid, but there's no loopholes(I think). I hope I better stated that.

 

[Dell19]

the strangest transition i had to make was w/ the air units and their "immobile" flag.

it just seemed odd at first compared to civ2. however, i quickly got over it.

I never did really get used to how air units worked in Civ2. The Civ3 idea seems to make more sense since you don't have to worry about movement points.

 

[Turner]

I rather liked how it worked in Civ2, and miss it. One of the things I like about DyP/RnR is they brought those types of units back. Bombers and arty still stay the same, but they have units such as the Air Cavalry and Attack Chopper.

Both ways are good.

 

[Dell19]

The thing that was strange was that I was never sure when the unit would run out of fuel. I think I lost my first nuke in the middle of an ocean...

 

[John Lenin]

Thanks for the replies and welcomes, and I'm far enough now into my new game to see just how subtle and engrossing the new gameplay is. The latest on those pesky Germans is that they've conquered half the map and are camped out on my doorstep demanding all my technologies as the price for not swatting me out of history in a few tens of turns (which is what would happen at the moment). And I've worked out that, in Civ3, sometimes you have to capitulate to enemy demands. In Civ2 I never, ever, under any circumstances, gave a technology in response to a demand. There's no shame in doing so in Civ3, though, as the alternative is extinction - and it buys me time to discover flight in a few dozen turns' time, and then we'll have some fun...

Well the biggest thing I miss from Civ2 is the absence of Zones Of Control - in ye olden times of Civ2, you could position a couple of units in a mountain fortress and effectively block enemy approaches to key locations, channelling them towards where your best troops lie in wait (fortressed mountain troops in Civ2 being pretty much invulnerable). Different strategies are required in Civ3, it seems, and at the moment I'm basically stringing out an iron curtain of units between the (currently placid) Germans and my cities. Any better tips for ways of defending territory?

A thing I don't miss is that you can now safely move around your single military units without worrying about them being bribed. In Civ2 I lived in fear of hearing the rattlesnake-sound that indicated an enemy diplomat had bribed one of my best units.

And the Civ3 AI seems very 'muscular' to me - so far I have not had one instance of 'Uh? What was that?' when looking at an AI move.

 

[killerbunny]

If you have an aggressive AI like the Germans next to you, you will hardly come around building up some military force, or otherwise you're gonna get attacked. One thing that works rather well in Civ3: If you are attacked, try to get others into the war with the aggressor, that often works well and can make a difference.

The AI moves better in the territory than it did in Civ2. Try to fortify on all positions with high defense-values in your territory. Let him get in, but only in the open, soften him up with artillery and finish him off with fast units, that can withdraw to secure positions afterwards. In your own territory you have the advantage of your roads, use it. Don't counterattack without reasonable force. Armees with defensive units can play an important role in securing key-positions and artillery.

 

[punkbass2000]

OK, AI is still stupid, but there's no loopholes(I think). I hope I better stated that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, exactly, but I only see a semantic difference here. There are still plenty of loopholes.

 

[Strato]

One thing I found is that the AI fighting in the field is improved a bit more. Also, its necessary to do a big, rapid expansion in the early stages of the game to get any sort of momentum, as well as smart trading with the other civs.

From Civ II to Civ III I reckon is a big leap

 

[gunkulator]

The only thing I miss about Civ2 air units is the ability to take off from one place and land in another. I really wish you could do this in Civ3 since half of all my air units' time seems to be spent on rebasing.

The other annoyances and bizarre behavior of Civ2 air combat I can do without: Helos and bombers left standing in mid air, running out of fuel because you hit the wrong key or counted wrong, bombers protecting a stack, scouting with missiles, the AI having an infinite supply of cruise missiles.

 

[John Lenin]

Well that first full game ended in disaster late last night - I made the mistake of believing the Germans when they made peace, and I spent the next however-many turns of peace in improving infrastructure, building trade shipping, etc. I'll cut to the chase: in the space of around 10 turns the AI rolled over me like an, erm, steamroller. I counted the German cities: they had 49, occupying half the map. I only carried on to the end to see what kind of tactics the AI used: man, it loves its cavalry doesn't it? By this point I had Veteran and Elite Musketmen in every city, but the AI army was just too many. I sat through th end-game animation of 'you are a loser', and started another....

A bad game - stranded on an island with room for 5 cities, no fresh water, just one resource square (horses). I raced toward map making and built Great Lighthouse so my caravel would have a chance of making it to another land - and by the time they did, stocked with settlers and pikemen, every single chunk of land was occupied by another civ, who were all - predictably - 8 or so techs ahead of me. Game over.

Well, it was 3 a.m. by now but I thought one more go wouldn't hurt. I tweaked the settings to a large Panagea world with only 7 rivals (got to to learn, haven't I?!). What a post says a few posts above, about rapid expansion in the early years being crucial to success, is I think the proverbial nail-on-the-head. I found myself in a temperate zone, on a huge continent. I expanded at an insane rate, something I would never have done on Civ2, where you could take your time safe in the knowledge there's be space enough to build more cities at your leisure. (In Civ2, some of my greatest cities were only founded in mid- or even late-game, which I can't see happening in a full Civ3 world.).

My build queue for all new cities was set at Warrior-Settler-Temple-Worker-Settler. Then when the new city had done that, when it got to Pop 3 or so, another round of settler-building. Heh, by the time I went to bed at 6 a.m.-ish I had 25 cities and all the other civs licking my boots - but no war as yet, as my military is suffering from all the expanding. Whew. Civ3 isn't in Kansas anymore is it?

 

[Choffy]

I have been playing a lot Civ2.

- A big difference is happiness: Much more easier in Civ3 to manage if you have many luxuries. So don't build temple (except for a good reason such as a need for cultural border expanding), same for Cathedral and related wonders. That was one of the first thing I used to do in Civ2.
- I would also say that you need less improvement in your city
- The level are also a bit more difficult.

 

[Dell19]

My build queue for all new cities was set at Warrior-Settler-Temple-Worker-Settler. Then when the new city had done that, when it got to Pop 3 or so, another round of settler-building. Heh, by the time I went to bed at 6 a.m.-ish I had 25 cities and all the other civs licking my boots - but no war as yet, as my military is suffering from all the expanding. Whew. Civ3 isn't in Kansas anymore is it?

It tends to be a good idea to choose a couple of city locations where you can easily irrigate a food special like cattle or wheat and use those cities to rapidly build settlers with perhaps warriors as well. Then other cities may concentrate on building barracks for the veteran troop bonus and some other cities to build workers to connect cities. I tend to not build temples, choosing to build libraries instead especially if my traits give me a discount on building libraries since they also produce culture but give a science bonus. In the end barracks are quite a high priority for me since I've found that the AI doesn't seem to do the same and this can give me the edge in early wars. Although this is only on monarch.

 

[Licentia]

Well the biggest thing I miss from Civ2 is the absence of Zones Of Control - in ye olden times of Civ2, you could position a couple of units in a mountain fortress and effectively block enemy approaches to key locations, channelling them towards where your best troops lie in wait (fortressed mountain troops in Civ2 being pretty much invulnerable). Different strategies are required in Civ3, it seems, and at the moment I'm basically stringing out an iron curtain of units between the (currently placid) Germans and my cities. Any better tips for ways of defending territory?
And the Civ3 AI seems very 'muscular' to me - so far I have not had one instance of 'Uh? What was that?' when looking at an AI move.

The AI definitely makes the game harder for sure. I remember the first time I set defensive units on mountains outside my territory, thinking the AI would suicide themselves on them like they did in Civ1 and 2. Not so! The AI walked right on by to my weakly defended cities. Talk about hair pulling frustration. It's funny to see your defensive units chasing the AI attackers heading toward your own cities.