Disappointed...

[plomeros]

Hate to admit this, but civ3 was not as good as I expected. Civ2 was a better game when it came. Heres some weird s&%¤ that happened to me while playing civ3...

In the year 1050 BC, the Persians declares war on me. We have never had contact, (got communications through the Indians)never shared maps, never had any diplomatic activity. Then, for centuries, the armies of Persia march toward me, and LO! 360 years later they appear on my border, with some 20 units. During this time, they refused to talk to me, and when I finally got a meeting, their demands were outrageous. They had also manage to get technologies ten times as fast as me...

France invades...or at least they move an armygroup numbering millions of men into my lands. I tell them to get out or declare war, and they do as I tell them, only to be back the next turn. I tell them to butt out, and the whole thing repeats itself...for the next 30 years! When I finally and frustrated attack,still within my own borders, I'm the bad guy, my cities revolt and the rest of the world declares war on me within a few turns...

The Babylonians toil and work on the Mighty Pyramids for several hundred years...somehow they then get the news that the Iriquis, some people they never heard of, from a continent they've never knew existed just built the pyramids.So then the Babs decide to change all their labours into a Granary...Jeeez...talk about an expensive granary...

On a huge map, theBlitz war never could have occurred. The speeding Panzer armies of the Germanz needed years to reach Paris...

Talibans must be lucky bastars, since airstrikes by modern planes is UTTERLY USELESS!!! My Jetfighers (5), probably dozens of planes, repeatedly attacked the Roman navy, and blasted the Galleys, and managed to hurt one slightly. Are all the war footage propaganda?

Sorry about this ravings, but I really feel that both civ1 and 2 were better games. Yes, they didn't look so pretty, they were simpeler games, but someone had put alot more thought behind those games, the the current version. Sid, baby, I expected more from you!

 

[Ironikinit]

Well, it's a whole new game, really.

Try an easier level until you get the hang of it. A lot of Civ 2 players expect to be able to whip the game right off, but Civ 2 strategies don't work as they did. If you have any questions, we'll try to help. Take a look around at the threads, you can prob pick up some pointers.

I still get frustrated myself. Monarch is a little too easy, emperor a little too hard.

Oh, yeah, the game will mess you up bad on wonders. You'll get it if you stick with it.

 

[Feinder]

Yep, "it's a whole new game" (as far as stratagy goes).

Two key suggestions for you...
1. Spread like locusts in the beginning. It's not like in Civ2, where you could have a few super-cities. And when you -do- make contact with a rival civ, spread TOWARDS him; you can back-fill your own territory later.
2. Might makes right. You will always need a sizable military in Civ3. Anything less than 2 defenders per city, is bait for the computer. No matter if your neighbor is Kaiser or Ghandi, you WILL be attacked if your military is weak. And remember, the computer knows which cities are weakest, and he will try to exploit that.

Some minor thots...
1. You can actually cut back science a little. Not alot, but maybe back to 40%. That'll keep you on-par with your rivals, and help you pay for your larger military.
2. When your city has reached it's current max, because you don't have an aquaduct or hospital, gear it towards production, there's no point in amassing food, when your grainery is full.

Think of Civ3 as more of a game of global conquest, and you'll do fine. Your goal is dominate the Earth. In most cases, he with the biggest gun can do what he wants, to whomever he wants. Remember that you can't necessarily be in a position to win a scientific (spaceship) victory, until you've adaquately crushed your rivals.

-F-

 

[sd5]

i used to think civ2 was a better game for its time, but now im starting to change my mind. although i do think that espoinage and gorilla warefare, my two favorite things, are not nearly as fun in civ3, i like the other changes. i think you just have to be more aggressive. in civ2 you could kind of isolate yourself and do your own thing and then once you were ready then expand on your own terms. you cant do that in civ3, especially on higher levels because there is no way to keep up in tech without trading it. i would advise that you expand more in the earliest phase of the game and make a strong effort to explore as much as you can. if you do this, you will realize that the changes to civ3 are actually positive because the AI can actually beat you, unlike civ2. its the uncertainty that makes it fun.

 

[plomeros]

Thanks for your answers. I feel a little better now...

My point, however, is not that I want to beat the AI. I whipped him in civ 2 on Deity level and scored more then 300% (The count goess back to zero after something like 350%). I like that this game is hard, it should be.

I also understand and appriciate that the tactics are new. Civ3 has a lot of improvements. The whole culture thing is great, to name one.

What does bug me is these stupid errors in the game. I get equally frustrated when I benefit from these mistakes...as the time when I used up all my war chariots against the riflemen of the Russians, and somehow managed to win...

Hard is good, stupid is not.

 

[Taggis]

I really like the game as it is, but you could always try to change a thing or two by installing mods to the game. look at the 'mods' message board here. They can actually make the game better in some cases. Also, download the patch if you haven't. It fixes a lot of quirks!

 

[Zouave]

plomeros,

You BET there is a lot wrong with this flawed game. Go check the threads, and the "Sticky" threads at the top of the other forum.

Useless, expensive Espionage.

A very poor depiction of the use of navies which have no effect on trade and commerce.

Non-historical values and capabilities.

Too much corruption.

Too much culture flipping, with disappearing garrisons.

Inability to sink any warship by bombers. Absolutely ASININE!!

Too rare resources.

Cheating AI. The AI is also not that much smarter than Civ II.

And on and on and on. . .


There is one thing you can do - go into Editor and spend hours CORRECTING Sid's stupid values.

As for bombers, I gave them all attack and defense values, unclicked "immobile", and gave them a Movement of 6. Now they CAN sink warships. Whatever strange things it might do to the game it is better than what Firaxis gave us.

I too am disappointed.

Oh yes, no Cheat Mode, and inability to make scenarios, are two other major failings of Civ III.

 

[Ironikinit]

Useless, expensive Espionage.

--Except for the very valuable information provided on the military advisor's screen.

A very poor depiction of the use of navies which have no effect on trade and commerce.

--Except for blockade.

Non-historical values and capabilities.

--Would you rather have historical accuracy (in a game that doesn't even pretend to simulate a particular time period) or play balance?

Too much corruption.

--In your opinion. Sorry it's tough for you to make a completely unrealistic world spanning empire. I'm a bit surprised you feel that way, given that you condemn the "non-historical values". You can edit the corruption effects, if you like. Not hard.

Too much culture flipping, with disappearing garrisons.

--Can't help you there, other than suggest that you develop some basic game skills.

Inability to sink any warship by bombers. Absolutely ASININE!!

--Again, a play balance issue.

Too rare resources.

--Again, your opinion, and again you can edit that. I know you can use the editor because you say you have.

Cheating AI. The AI is also not that much smarter than Civ II.

--The AI "cheated" in Civ II. Further, the AI in Civ III is much better than in Civ II. For example, the AI in Civ II didn't expand nearly quickly enough, it misjudged the capability of the player to use force over distance, and rarely attacked in force. Let's not forget that many of the accusations of the AI cheating have been explained, not only by fans, but by people from Firaxis.

 

[Zouave]

A disappointing AI. . .

Three games in a row I began successfully invading a civ early in the game (around 100 - 500 AD).

With about six cities left the civ began building a Great Wonder, in the most recent case the Hanging Gardens!! That when they desperately needed troops: four top units would have forced me to make peace in all likelihood.

So I wiped out their Wonder-building civs.

The fact that the AI was so stupid took away all the enjoyment.

Civ II used to do that. I had hoped Civ III would be better.

 

[element|Z]

As far as for CIV 3 I lovge the game... I have played both on Chieftan and on Deity level and I must say that there are plenty of difrences between playing on those levels.

F.example when you play on Chieftan, you get a

-free tech adwance (if your CIV is sciantific) every new Era.

-Other CIV expand (build cities) theres therritory slower.

-Sciantific reaserch is a lot slower

-Building Mil.Units is a lot slower

-They Build most things a LOT slower

-Communications beetween CIV's are much worse etc





While on deity there is a whole other "level" of game. AI here is almost unbeatabel.

F.example...

-They expand their therritory extreamly fast (They possibly have 2-3 Settlers at the start of the game.)

-They communicate extreamly well and exchange tech as soon as they establish contact with each other.

-You as a player if your civ is Scientific don't get no "free tech advance" each new era.

-Barberians are a lot more agressive even if you have set em on the "children" - level...



Despite all this I belive even that they use their Intelligance Agancy very vell for stealing your tech as soon as you have something they don't.



Exaple of games I have played..

On Chieftan: I had in the beginning of the game twice as much cities as three other civs. I hade 2 times more mil.units than any other civ. I was leading sciance race by an whole ERA. Nobody could touch me ffs -

On deity there was a whole other story: By the time I builde by second city all other civs had allready 4-6 cities. They had communications with most other civs and had Tech advatage by 5-8 tech things... By the time I started to build wonders they allready have finished 2-3 wonders... etc etc



I like the game on all levels for it gives diffrend players several oputunity to choos where to play. I my self like to play on 2-3 last levels.. (Inncluding Deity sometimes) For for me it's DAMN to easy to win on anything else than Monarch.. First on Monarch I see some resistance -



And I agree with most of you that Intelligance agancy S*cks. Only good thing is that you get to see locations of other Civ's troops. But coulture I can't blame. Exept the "depsing" of cities in Modern Age. Thats too insane. I mean, I can understand how people from diffrend tribes "Deposed" to other coultures before, but in these Modern Ages, thats unthinkabel.... well, for me at least.



And I never attack other civ exept I am SURE that I can Wipe The Of The Facer Of The Earth in 2 turns - (With 200 Modern Armour) -



The God Of Civillization

 

[O_o]

i used to easily win at the deity lvl of civ2 so i started deity in civ3 ....no months l8r im still on regent lvl...play the game as it is ur first time playing it