1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civs from easiest to hardest

Discussion in 'Civ3 Strategy Articles' started by Arathorn, Jan 22, 2002.

  1. Arathorn

    Arathorn Catan player

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,778
    Location:
    Illinois
    Please note: A lot of this discussion, especially the initial list here, were written before the 1.17 patch. With the ability to upgrade to UUs and the dice roll for fast unit retreat, it probably needs re-evaluation. Please keep this in mind as you read. (Edit: 2/19/2002 by Arathorn)

    WARNING!!!! Let me say this a bit louder and longer and larger. This list is VERY OLD and VERY out of date. While I still believe a lot of what was said was true at the time, this list is OLD! It's pre-1.17 patch for vanilla civ and ignores a HUGE number of changes that were made in patching vanilla, not to mention PTW and C3C. This should be viewed as a historical oddity and maybe for some interesting tidbits but the order is no longer remotely even close to true.

    That is, don't read this with a grain of salt...read it with a beer in hand like you would an old novel. It might have a few interesting points, but it's no longer truly a valuable guide -- at least in the author's opinion. (Edit: 6/8/2004 by Arathorn)

    What civs are easiest/hardest to play? As far as I can determine, the key factors are civ-specific traits and Unique Units (UU). The manual claims that diplomacy is easier with culturally linked neighbors, but I'm not sure how large a role, if any, that plays, so I am ignoring it.

    All of the following are based purely on my opinion. I’ve not played all the civs. I’m also assuming a high difficulty level (deity or maybe emperor). I'd be interested in hearing others' views.

    Easiest:
    Iroquois – Mounted Warriors are a dominant ancient age force and fully upgradeable all the way to cavalry (useful through most of the Industrial Age). Religious is an awesome trait with cheap temples and one-turn anarchy. Expansionist is marginally useful for early map-selling. The UU advantage is simply huge, though. Only "downsides" are an early GA (but that can lead to lots of early wonders and an early lead, which is never surrendered) and the need for horses for the UU.

    Aztecs – Some would disagree but their UU is just so awesome. Early retreat, extremely cheap, lots of early leaders make these little guys way cool. Pillaging at speed. Add in militaristic and they promote and crank out leaders. Religious is almost too much to add. The lack of upgrade path for jaguar warriors and the incredibly early GA are the detriments.

    Japanese – Samurai are both the best offensive and defensive unit for a reasonable period. They prevent retreat, defend as well as musketmen (their contemporaries), only cost 10 shields more, and attack well. Militaristic and religious (again) for leaders and some happy culture. Start with "The Wheel" so can see horses early. Downside is that you have to wait for Military Tradition to upgrade those horsemen you have running around.

    Still Easy:
    Egyptians – War Chariots are essentially horsemen without horseback riding. Very early move 2 with reasonable offense and upgrade directly to knights. Religious and industrious work well. Cheap culture/happiness and lots of improvements from fast workers. Downside is the very early GA and a struggle with mountainous/jungle-infested maps.

    Zulu – Hate having your horsemen attacked after they do their stuff? Me, too. The answer is the Impi, who is able to keep up. Horsemen don't retreat from these guys, either. Upgradeable all the way to Mobile Infantry. They don't need a resource to build. Their Militaristic nature makes for veteran impi/horsemen hordes and early GLs. Expansionist helps them know where to attack and gives map selling options but is generally weak. Again, an early GA is the downside, as well as the generally weak expansionist trait. Also, culture can be a problem for the Zulus as everything is full price for them and they have no shield bonuses.

    Persians – The highest offensive number before knights belongs to the immortal, Persia's UU. Still, I find I like legionaries better. I ranked Persia as 'easier' than Rome, though, for a number of reasons. One, Persia starts only one advance away from iron working, since it starts with bronze working. Industrious workers make getting a road to those enemies a lot easier. Scientific is nice, with both cheap libraries/universities and those three free scientific advances. Downside is that the UU can't retreat, leading to high casualties (although an ancient army of three immortals is pretty invincible). The UU also doesn't upgrade, leading to obsolescence problems.

    About average:
    Greeks – Hoplite is an awesome defensive unit up until riflemen (cost compare with musketmen and I know which I’d rather have). It upgrades all the way to mech infantry, too, which is nice. Commercial and scientific should lead to huge tech leads, but it doesn’t seem to any more than any other civilization. Starting on the road to the Great Library is nice, but science shouldn’t be the Greeks problem. Downside is no good offense, hoplites are too slow to really escort horsemen, and the early GA has very little going for it.

    Chinese – Riders get an extra movement point. Since railroad is still quite a ways off, this gives significantly faster response to invasions and a faster invasion force. The ZOC is nice on paper but is less significant in practice. On the other hand, they fight like knights, I don’t think they can run from knights, and can’t be upgraded to. Industrious and militaristic make a nice combination, as wars run smoothly and infrastructure on the land is quickly and easily replaced. The GA is perfectly timed for all those nice Middle Age wonders (Sistine, Bach, even Leonardo and Sun Tzu). The inability to upgrade horsemen is a big problem, as are the long periods of anarchy. China is often at war and hence will occasionally lag technologically.

    Babylonians – Bowmen are a combination spearman/archer. They are a nice shock troop in the ancient age, doing two roles, but their upgrade path stinks. They trigger an early GA which is probably not needed. On the other hand, the twin traits of scientific and religious make the Babylonians the undisputed culture king of Civ3. They have lots of cheap city improvements and should be good at cultural absorption and minimizing flips after conquest. The free tech can be very handy, too. The biggest downside is the adequate but horribly unupgradeable UU. Who needs longbowmen?

    Romans – Legionaries can, indeed, rule the Ancient Age. At 3/3, they’re the best defenders around (until musketmen, who aren’t much better and a lot more expensive). They are slow on the attack and no better than swordsmen that way. They also have no upgrade path and require iron. Militaristic is nice for getting elite legionaries and leaders, but legionaries do die a lot more than fast units, since they can’t retreat. Commercial is rarely helpful. The Romans’ other downside is a huge difficulty building cultural improvements, as they have no extra shields and everything is full cost.

    Getting Difficult:
    Germans – Panzers are nice, the extra move and blitzkrieg ability make them terrors of the late industrial age. On the other hand, modern armor isn’t that far away, they still really struggle against mech infantry, tanks will still crush them, and panzers come too late in the game to really matter. By that point, a game is usually won or lost and panzers rarely make the difference. The GA really comes at a pretty inconvenient time, as few wonders still need to be built and war is a LONG process. Militaristic is OK, but it’s had to completely take advantage of early, when it’s most important. Scientific helps get to tanks a tiny bit faster, but it also serves to shorten the time until modern armor. A very late GA is probably not going to help, the extra movement point isn’t enough with RR everywhere, and a short period for a UU make the Germans kind of tough to win with.

    Indians – War Elephants are nice if you have no iron or no horses, but if you’re in that situation, you probably have more problems than just getting knights will solve. Elephants crimp the upgrade path for horsemen, too, for little/no additional merit. At least the Indians are religious, which can solve a lot of problems. Commercial helps some with gold, which will be sorely needed. The GA comes at a great time, for building those Middle Ages wonders, but with no other helps, it’s a tough climb.

    French – Musketeers are weird, in that their primarily ability is that you get to keep building a superior older unit (pikemen). For the same shield cost, two pikemen provide much better defense and can upgrade to two good units. Musketeers have better offense than musketmen but are still basically worthless, except to trigger a GA. The French GA is also in a pretty sweet spot for wonders and getting a lead on the AI. Industrious and commercial traits encourage the French to have big cities to get their bonuses. They can also afford a slightly larger empire, with the commercial trait. How they get that empire is a mystery to me.

    Hardest:
    English – Man-O-War is an updated frigate that has a little better attack/bombard values. They can sometimes sink ironclads, but the age of sail is so short. And Magnetism doesn’t lead to a particularly valuable GA, other than the fact that it comes late. If you need coal, you can leverage your GA into an attack, but that’s not terribly realistic. Expansionist and commercial the British may be, but that is hardly an advantage, as they have no culture benefits, no shield benefits, and a world map only has value so long.

    Americans – The F-15 comes extremely late, is better at bombard only than a jet fighter (why not use a bomber?), and requires special resources. The very late GA is probably too little too late to save a player that’s behind and unnecessary for one that’s ahead (one could build the SS faster, I suppose, but tech is usually more important than shields. To get the late GA, you need to start a war and that’s a pain on tech.) Expansionist and industrious isn’t much better than the British situation. The industrious workers and shields help a little, but the poor UU is a lot to overcome. It breaks an upgrade path, too, to add insult.

    Russians – The Cossack is the only UU I wish I could simply remove. It breaks the horsemen/knight upgrade path, which is horribly painful. It’s only marginally useful, as defense for a fast offensive unit usually is. You have to build all of them from the ground up, they’re barely better than cavalry, can’t upgrade, and put a GA in an odd time slot. NO THANKS! Add in questionable value in expansionist, and the scientific trait can’t bring them up. The main offensive thread is completely disrupted and knights hang around way too long. It’s a huge hurdle with no reward for leaping it.

    Arathorn
     
  2. Zouave

    Zouave Crusader

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,603
    I thought so many of the unit values in Civ III to be dumb, non-historical, and lacking playabilty. Therefore, I made so many changes your comments are irrelevant to me.

    Basically I did the following:

    Tanks - no blitz.

    Naval Units - only Battleships and Aegis have bombardment capability.

    All naval units are 2-4 points stronger and faster.

    Longbowmen are now civ specific - English. Which is historically accurate, as is their being 4.3.

    Archers can be upgraded to pikemen.

    Bombers have attack and defense values, and can move, otherwise they could never sink warships - which is STUPID.

    War elelphants are now 4.1. Also accurate, historically.

    Airlift function? Horse units, armor, and elephants should NEVER be airlifted. Leaders and cannon and artillery should.

    Those are just some of the changes I made.

    I also made longbowmen civ-specific for the Americans as the F-15 comes too late to make any difference.

    I will agree with you about the Iroquois. I also like their colors.

    BTW, check in Editor and make sure horsemen and Mounted Warriors have a ZOC. You can also make Cossacks upgradeable if you want.
     
  3. Exile_Ian

    Exile_Ian Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    WA, USA
    With regards to some of the changes that Zouave made:

    I wouldn't think Cannon should be airlifted either (from an historic point of view).

    I would also disagree about allowing Bombers to bomb ships. In reality I can't imagine the tradtional high-altitude bombers (e.g. WW2) even bothering to attack warships - its just not practical. If you wanted to have a new unit which was something like the Sopwith Camel (which carried a torpedo) and have that about to attack ships, that would make sense (but in that case, it wouldn't be bombardment would it?).

    I wouldn't agree with the restriction on restricting the bombardment to only modern units either - there are plenty of historic precedents to support bombardment by Galleons and Frigates.

    But thats just my opinion - the great thing about this game is that you can make your own rules. If I was going to change things myself, I'd want to do so based on historic relevance though.
     
  4. hzm

    hzm Ecco the Dolphin

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    western united states
    I seem to remember some British ships bombarding our fortresses in the war of 1812.


    And the reason bombers can't destroy battleships is because they are battleships groups, not individuals. So if it is red that means 90 percent of the force has been destroyed. You should be able to destroy them with multiple bomber grounds though.
     
  5. Squiggy

    Squiggy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The British are a bit difficult, but they're one of my favorite civs:

    Yes, the UU is completely worthless, but the starting techs mean that you'll probably be first to Map Making, which means fast expansion, a key element of the game. Also, like Egypt, the British Golden Age can be triggered by building a single wonder. In this case, it's the Colossus. Build in and you get a GA. Since this one is relatively low on the AI's priorety list, you can probably hold off on constructing it until you have a decent sized empire. This, in theory, means that you'll be hitting your Golden Age near the end of the Ancient Era, which means that you can be first to Knights and rule the world.

    Just a theory.
     
  6. Beam

    Beam Beat 'm up Scotty! Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2001
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    At 51º35'N 4º46'E
    Arathorn, like this thread since it talks about the "real" value rather then the pepped-up Firaxis descriptions! :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: . Now I'd like to go for the Gauntlet.

    Just to make discussion easier a short summary of the original post:
    - Religion is the most useful ability (all 4 top-easy civs have it)
    - Expansionist is the most useless (all 3 top-hard civs have it)
    - Late and early GA's are not any good
    - UU should be offensive and fast and appear early to mid game
    - Preferably the UU is upgradeble

    Take these criteria and apply them to the list (you can disagree with this approach of course, I agree btw with most of Arathorns points of argumentation):

    Iroquois: Expansionistic and early GA, uhm, overrated IMHO
    Aztecs: No upgrade path, early GA. Overrated as well.
    Japan: No comments, apart from "late" upgradebility
    Egypt: Early GA
    Zulu: Expansionistic and early GA
    Persians: Slow UU, cannot upgrade UU
    Greeks: Slow defense UU, early GA
    Chinese: No upgrade path, questionable UU
    Babies: Stinking upgrade path, early GA
    Romans: Slow UU with no upgrade path, eraly GA (IMHO)
    Germans: No good at all ;)
    Indians: No upgrade path for UU, uhm, underrated IMHO
    French: UU slow, defense, questionable
    The rest: Expansionistic, late, questionable UU

    Now in my mind it depends on the kind of game you are in how the sequence could be. If it is cramped (like in a full-civ huge map) where you have early encounters with AI and battle is key for survival (like in Deity games) an early superior UU is key, but of limited appeal and advantage. A number of Deity game posts indicate 1500/1600/1700 AD is where you can assume to be controlling the game.

    If there is a bit more room the other factors count as well, specially a well timed GA and limited disadvantages. In that case, given the summary, I would propose the following top 5, looking at UU speed/offensive, good GA, Rel. Y / Exp. N, upgradebility:
    - Japan: disadvantages are a mere nuisance
    - Indians: funny UU, rest OK
    - Chinese: have to live with UU, no Rel.
    - Egyptians: early GA
    - Aztecs: early GA, no upgrade path

    Bit in doubt on the Chinese since they will not make a lot of friends and are inflexible to gov. changes! So they move to 5.

    Verdict (please read post!):
    1- Japanese
    2- Indians
    3- Egyptians
    4- Aztecs
    5- Chinese

    So this list is somewhat different from Arathorn, yet using the same points of argumentation but with a different view. Hope you appreciate and please feedback! :D
     
  7. janders0

    janders0 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    3
    I like to play on huge maps and build very large empires, so my rating system is basically the exact opposite of yours. My empire choices rate Industrious as the most important factor, with Expansionist and Commericial tied for second and religous and scientific tied for least useful.

    Industrious is almost a requirement for my game, halving the worker output and adding the shields gives me more units, better cities and more mines faster then anyone else. This gives me a big leg up on other empires in getting to the wonders I want/need and gives me the production capacity to build the army I like to maintain.

    I dont know why expansionist is so underrated. I love the American combo (dislike the UU, but you cant win all the time), scouts are a big advantage on the early map and most important to me is the goody hut advantage, I get 5-10 skills per game from huts with expansionist civs where as any non-expansionist civs I generelly get 1-3. I always take a big Civ lead with expansionist.

    Commercial is my other favorite because of two reasons trade is always good and reduced corruption is almost essential to a large empire.

    Religious to me is the most over-rated trait on this board. The ability to build quick temples is very nice for the early game, but overall I just dont switch governments that much to find the anarchy bit that usefull, and I find other traits to be much more usefull.

    As a result of this my easiest top 5 are

    1. French. IMO you really underrate the musketeer, I can quickly create an army of those units and very quickly have a balanced defensive and offensive force that can crush anyone without muskteers to defend. Yes two pikemen are better then 1 musketman, but 2 musketmen are better then one offensive unit and 2 pikemen because you have 2 to defend and attack and you only have to maintain 2 units. An army of musketmen will steamroll any city for a very long period. Support of some artillary and you can make some serious ground. The combination of Ind & Com is great for big productive cities and big productive empires.

    2. Americans. The UU is a throw away unit, but overall it doesnt matter. Expansionist is a huge advantage, and combining that with Ind means that I very quickly can see the entire map around me, hit the most goody huts and can build all the mines/irragation/roads that I need. When I play as the Americans large empires with great infastructure is easy, and the goody huts & early road building allow me to build a 3-5 tech lead that I never relinquish in the game if I can help it. Pottery also lets me get to map making quickly and I can often use the combo of early map making and scouts to meet civs and trade my maps for their early tech leaving the goody huts to get me tech like construction and monarcy very quickly.

    3 Chinese. I like the combo of Miltaristic and Industrious. The UU is ok, and Golden Age is pretty easy to attain. The shield bonus and quick workers mean that my empire will generally be strong, and the miltaristic means that I can have my units upgrade very quickly and crush any nearby enemies. This civ is very very good in the smaller maps and if I am playing on standard or less I either go with Chinese or French.

    4. Persians. Immortals can give you some nice punch early in the game, and the combo of Ind & Scientific can be very nice. Problem of course occurs if you dont have any iron early in the game, but immortals can be the strongest unit for a very long time if you get iron enough and can give you a very quick edge.

    5. Japanese. I like the japanese mostly because of the samuri although the Mil & Rel combo is fairly usefull allowing you to build up cities very quickly.

    5 worst civs.

    1. Egyptians. I just cant stand the egyptians, Rel is just not that usefull, and the war chariot is so useless, more often then not I could have had horsemen anyway by the time I would have used them, and they are just too weak.

    2. Indians Just no real advantage to these guys at all. The UU is useless because iron and horses arnt THAT hard to get, commercial is nice, but no where near enough to offse their problems.

    3. Aztecs. UU is just way too early and way too useless, I guess with Milt & Rel they can build alot of city improvements easily, but they will need to since they dont get any extra sheilds, their workers take forever to do anything, and they dont research very well.

    4. Zulu. The UU is ok, but since they dont do alot of attacking they arnt very good for creating leaders and triggering GAs. Expansionist is nice, but miltaristic isnt that usefull, and half of the usefullness of the scout is eliminated by the UU which offer the speed of the scout but they can defend. The overlaping skills means that they dont get enough elsewhere. Would be interesting if they were Ind + Milt instead...

    5. Germans. Milt & Scientific is one of the worst combos you could come up with, and the panzer is nice but comes a bit late. Overall not a very good civ.
     
  8. Arathorn

    Arathorn Catan player

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,778
    Location:
    Illinois
    Thanks for the well thought-out replies....

    I neglected to mention in my original post I was discussing Deity games, standard maps. One of my mantras (that I forget to mention -- bad Arathorn!) is that no Civ3 discussion can really be held in the absence of difficulty and map type considerations. With that in mind....

    For the Brits, can be excellent on an archipelago map, but early map-making hasn't seemed as much a benefit for me on pangaea or even continents. YMMV and it's a theory probably worth testing.

    My experience with Deity is that an early war is required to catch up. I know others have had success without one, but I've not. That experience has certainly influenced my list. The Japanese are certainly a huge force to reckon with, if/when they get a samurai force going -- unless the other civs are at infantry, in which case it's too late. Merely getting Chivalry isn't enough, as horsemen can't be upgraded so the samurai have to be built from scratch. With the Aztecs (for example), you can be on your fourth opponent by Chivalry.

    1500/1600/1700 AD to be controlling the game? On Deity, unless you've disabled space launch, the game is OVER by ~1600 AD. If no launch, then, yeah, I assume you might be in control by then, but it's touch-and-go and all civs are the same in the modern age, really.

    Indians? Commercial is a minor benefit at best and I can't get past having a UU that isn't really an advantage most of the time. I can't see them in the top 5.

    On expansionist vs. religious. Expansionist civs claim to fame is a few extra techs, about two on a standard map -- and maybe a couple hundred extra gold. Compare that to religious shield savings ((temple (30) + cathedral (70)) * # of cities (~30) = 3000 shields). Add in less anarchy turns (figure two on average for non-religious civs at ~6 turns each, that's 12 turns of anarchy saved, which is 2-3 advances and a few hundred shields/gold). Religious wins hugely. And that's without even considering a religious civ's ability to pop into communism just long enough to pop-rush a few improvements in outlying cities and then pop back to democracy. It might be different on a huge map, where there are more goodie huts to pop, but then there are more cities to save shields in....)

    Musketeers rule? Excuse me? You're paying 60 for a 3/4/1 when everybody else is paying 70 for a 4/3/2. Consider reasonably equal shields...420 for simplicity. You have 7 musketeers against 6 knights. The 6 knights attack (added mobility means they chose the attack time). Odds (I think) say they kill 3, injure 3, and have one casualty. The remaining 4 musketeers attack, killing two (who couldn't retreat) and have two casualties (else less one knight casualty, as the musketmen are wounded). The knights now retreat and heal back to full. End result: 3 full health knights and 2 injured musketmen. Advantage: KNIGHTS. Add reasonable support troops for flavor and the knights still win.

    There are a large number of advantages to very, VERY early wars that I think janders0 is overlooking or hasn't experienced. First, culture flips are less likely as the cities don't have the population/cultural history to encourage flipping. Second, great leaders very early are huge (2600 BC Pyramids, anyone?) for cascade minimization (and AI shield wasting), culture, as well as the normal wonder benefits. Third, it's a great way to get tech. Being able to war 20 turns earlier is HUGE. For example, war chariots are cheaper than horsemen, so you can have 1.5 times as many, they come a tech earlier so you can start attacking earlier. Yes, the wheel can makes things inconvenient with mountains/jungle, but that's where human intelligence comes in.

    As for commercial, I don't see much difference. The one extra gold/city is nice, but it's less useful than an extra shield. The corruption doesn't help tragic cities, which is the true bane. The rest of the cities only lose minimal amounts to corruption/waste (if properly managed) and end-of-turn build overlaps will usually dwarf other losses over time. Do commercial civs get a benefit with trading? I've never seen it and I don't think it's documented anywhere. Is it?

    Lots of good thoughts and ideas, which is the whole point. It also reinforces my idea that standard maps and huge maps are very different beasts and need to be treated as such.

    Arathorn
     
  9. Beam

    Beam Beat 'm up Scotty! Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2001
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    At 51º35'N 4º46'E
    Agree Arathorn, (most of the unquoted parts as well), difficulty level and Civ density matter as well IMO. Fast expanding AI (your Deity, standard map!) make it neccesary to have good units available early, while with more room available you can wait a while to get a heavier UU. For practical reasons I usually play Monarch on a Large map. I understand the mechanics for emperor / deity, yet have the strong impression that it takes to much of the little time I have available :cry:

    Janders what level / number of civs you play on to put your reasoning in the right perspective?
     
  10. Aloneth

    Aloneth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Shenzhen, China
    With Patch 1.17, UUs are now part of the regular upgrade chain. Obviously, Japan, Chinese, India and Russian should have better situations now.

    So unfortunately and sadly, the patch comes too later, I have led Chinese to Industrial Ages. Please be reminded, I am playing huge mapper with other 15 civs, it's impossible to replay the full middle age. More than 15 horseman had to wait for Calvary for upgrading. If 117 comes more earlier, my GA should be much greater GA.

    My point of view: Militaristic is as useful as Religious. With 10 swordman and 10 horseman, you do NOT need to research any more in Ancient Age and early Middle Age. Since you can not compete with computer in building city, conquer is MUST. By war/peace in Ancient Age, you can get literacy and at least 1 leader, who will help you build Great Library. That's great advantage! Now you can save your money and to upgarde horseman to Knight/Rider.

    I think rider is the greatest UU. 1st, it can retreat. Compared with other retreatable units, it's first fastest-speed(3) unit which make
    blitzkrieg possible. With rider quarter at your own territory/city, you can catch enemy's marginal city in one turn! Yes, when 10 Rider .vs. 10 Samurai, it will lose the battle. But please remember, you are fighting against computer, computer always remains a lot of older units, in such batter, rider is more useful.

    All my experience is based on fighting against computer in deity level. And Save/Load is the key cheater that computer never know. With S/L, retreat is wonderful function. For instance, I use swordman for offense, spearman for defense, but most important of all, I use horseman for LUCK. Enemy's city always has several spearman. When you use swordman(3.2.1) attach spearman (1.2.1), sometimes you will lost. That because you has BAD luck. Don't worried, load file, let horseman attach 1st, it will absorb the BAD luck and then retreat, then use swordman to win the battle.

    I think civIII is the art of war. In Ancient Age, war helps to get Great Library, workers and average number of cities. In Middle Age, war helps to get double number of cities and several important GWs as JS Bach¡¯s Cathedral, Michelangelo¡¯s Chapel, Leonardo¡¯s Workshop, Adam Smith's Trading Company. In Industrial Age, war helps you have all types of Strategic Resource and Luxury Resources.

    Now my empire:
    Researching Replaceable Parts for Infantry(6.10.1)
    Building Railway
    Havn't Nationalism while some other civs have
    3rd powerful military in volume, I guess the best in quality
    Largest territory
    3rd high score but will soon be No.1 (so many cultural building)
    Have Built folllowing GW: The Great Library, Adam Smith's Trading Company, Copernicus' Observatory, Leonardo's Workshop, Magellan's Great Voyage, Michelangelo's Chapel, Newton's University, Shakespeare's Theater.
    Huave Built following SW: Forbidden Palace, Heroic Epic, Military Academy, Wall Street.
    Have a free leader (prepare for Theory of Evolution)
    Get about 700 golds/turn from other civs for selling Steam Power

    Huge-Map, Deity-Level is easy to play! Lets share experience!

    Aloneth 2/19/2002
     
  11. hoyatables

    hoyatables Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    I thought the discussion here was fairly well rounded, but I feel a point of qualification is needed for the Germans and Americans. They are harder because the UU triggered Golden Age comes later, but they don't need to be harder for THAT reason. Their Golden Age can also be triggered by Civ-specific Wonders. With the Germans, building Sun Tzu led to a Golden Age at a GREAT time. With the Americans, the Colossus had the same advantage, especially since it was completed in the early Middle Ages. I'm sure other Wonders can trigger a similar change.

    Expansionist Civs are a crapshoot. If you are lucky and discover a whole host of goody huts, you can leapfrog WAY ahead of the competition. I had Currency, Construction, and Polytheism by around 2350 BC. It allowed me to take my time. And while the "Save/Load" strategy is tempting, it's ultimately unfair (I use it to correct errors in terms of movement (stupid sensitive touch pads), but I try to avoid correcting Military blunders. However, if you're going to invest a lot of time into each game, it makes sense to only go forward when you feel you have a good beginning. And sometimes that takes a few tries with a new Civ - especially when trying out new qualities. The moral here is "don't be afraid to hit "new game."
     
  12. IronicWarrior19

    IronicWarrior19 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    151
    Realoding is cheating IMHO. You can beat deity easily without reloading.
     
  13. hoyatables

    hoyatables Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Reloading may be cheating for you...I'm still getting the ropes down and if I want to enjoy a game at a reasonable level, I sometimes reload.
     
  14. bigsuper

    bigsuper Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    Sweden
    There is one thing I just don't manage to do in Civ3.
    I can't "unload" units from the armies so they can be replaced with better units. Does anybody know how to do that?
     
  15. IronicWarrior19

    IronicWarrior19 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    151
    I'm not sure why they did it, but it's supposed to be impossible to swap units in armies. There is a way however (a bug), look on the civ3 general forum.

    'Reloading may be cheating for you...I'm still getting the ropes down and if I want to enjoy a game at a reasonable level, I sometimes reload.'

    That's ok, I don't know why they didn't include a cheat mode in civ3 anyway. Just as long as you don't play competitive games using reload :)
     
  16. kinckus

    kinckus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    8
    IronicWarrior19, civ III does include a cheat (well, not really) but if you save your game as "multi" (w/o the quotes) and load it, it reveals the whole map and other resources that your not supposed to see yet. Also, you could change what other civs are producing. ;) Edit: now you can't with the 1.21f patch. :(
     
  17. philippe

    philippe FYI, I chase trains.

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Bourgondische Kreitz
    stop arguing and vote on my poll to see what is the best civ vote and learn:king: :goodjob: :crazyeye: :egypt: :love: :D :cool: :p ;) :)
     
  18. Shabbaman

    Shabbaman rebuffing the rebels

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    3,585
    Location:
    the new civduelzone.com!
    Most votes count?

    Sounds like a democracy. And debate with proper arguments suddenly loses all meaning?

    Personally, I like both the Legionaire and Immortal, but that's just because I like to expand early on using swordsmen (which can't upgrade, which s*cks). But then again, I like the German militaristic/scientific combo, but that's because I like to bash heads with advanced units...

    Industrious is a nice treat though. And religious gives you a nice way to switch governments quickly when you find yourself at war suddenly...

    so...

    Ehm. This doesn't make it any easier. One thing I know for sure: I ended up with a load of knights that wouldn't upgrade to cossacks. Enough reason not to play Russians ever again!!!
     
  19. Tar-David

    Tar-David Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    1
    the greeks have it made. commercial gives:
    1 extra money for science funding
    scientific gives:
    1 extra advance per age
    2 half way to Iron deposit location.
    3 cheap library. culture jump in 4 turns to culturally defend annexed cities

    special unit.
    -best defender of age
    -can build immediately
    -when veteran dug in on iron deposit tile (hill or mountain) is practically unbeatable
    -cheap and easy pikeman

    Basically it breaks down like this if they arent rome then I can attack with swordmen confidently. if they are rome I discover locate and cut off iron supply before they discover it. and attack confidently. if its persia its tricky but an attacking immortal is equal to a fortified hoplite, yes its tricky but at worst equal

    after that its all large scale strategy: cutting off strategic resources, monopolizing luxuries, killing small wonders, etc. special units don't really make a diff later on.
     
  20. Grey Fox

    Grey Fox Master of Points

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    8,726
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    Why do you think Germans are so poor? Ok, I never play with em, but they start with both Archers and Spearmen... so tried the Archer/Spearman tactics? It works real nice.

    Anyway, I agree Irouqois (or whatever the spelling are) are real good early on. And Religious are real great.

    One civ I really love to play in Peaceful games (and sometimes warmonging games aswell) are the Babylonians. (Scientific + Religious = great Culture!)
    I'm playing a game right now where I won't use any force (no active wars), only build cities and Culture to win a domination, on a standard map with max civs, and the map is filled now, and I'm getting 1-2 cities from the enemy with culture almost every other rurn now. (Turned of culture win so I won't win that way, but it seems that was unnecessary...).
    I'm like 200 Tiles from domination, and it's my golden age (a combo of SIstine or Bachs + Newtons).

    Try this type of game out sometime, real fun!
     

Share This Page