Easier difficulty and AI makes cities like wildfire

[billybgame]

It has been forever since I played Civ 3. My laptop no longer allows me to play Civ 5, and Civ 4 won't work either, so I got Civ 3 to work off of Good Old Games. It is the Complete Edition. So, Play the World and Conquests, I think are included.

Anyhow, having forgotten how to play this, I started slowly. Chieftain games, and now trying Warlord. Just doing random setups.

Anyhow, it is just amazing to me how many cities the AI has, on these supposed easy difficulties. Noticed it on Chieftain, but lived with it. But, in this Warlord game, I got saddled with a very small island, where I could fit 7 cities....and could reach no other land masses. One benefit were the turns were so fast, made it into the medieval times fairly quickly.....now got Navigation and finally started meeting a bunch. They've got these large landmasses, with 30, 40 cities. Crazy. At least compared to Civ 4 and 5, when you played easier difficulties. The AI just would not expand this quickly or aggressively.

I wasn't even a member of this esteemed site back in the Civ 2 and 3 days, though, so probably just learned as I went. But, I sure don't recall this sort of AI behavior....is it a Conquests thing, or am I just forgetting how poorly the AI was set up for Civ 3?

I do recall hating some things about Civ 3, compared to 2, and when 4 came out it was a godsend.

Anyhow, am I missing something or is there a setting I can alter? I'll be getting a new laptop by year's end, but was kind of enjoying rediscovering this, but sure seems like the deck is stacked against you by the AI!!!!

Bill

 

[Nathiri]

Well, the AI is programmed to rapidly expand all available land till there is no more, but on lower difficulties it isnt too hard to out-expand them. The thing with civ3 though, which, I have mixed feelings on, is you do have to rapidly expand in the early game. If you dont get alot of cities, than you cant do near as well. More cities is always better. You want to pretty much always have a settler factory going, not do it in bursts, though I guess you could. The scale of civ3 is big empires. Later iterations I feel they tried to focus on smaller empires.

Once you get good at being efficient with your turns, the AI on chieftain or Warlord is so incredibly slow.

 

[jarred!]

Maps are much smaller in the later iterations, and they jam more civs and city-states into these smaller areas. Civ3 might be a purer 4X game than civ5, as expansion and exploration are more important on these larger maps. Once you get the hang of early expansion (PUMPING out settlers) and exploration (land and sea, always) the lower levels will become easy, and you'll need to start focusing on empire management to progress.

 

[billybgame]

Ok...thanks guys....maybe it's just been so long I forgot how different 3 was. I recall hating the late game relentless navy from the AI etc. But, must've forgot it's a land grab early on, even in Chieftain.

When I saw there were 11 opponents and I was land locked on an island I could only fit 7 cities on, I probably should've known better and started another game right away. Might've still won space race....that was my aim, after conquest in my prior game. But, I didn't have a big tech lead, and it may have gotten even worse later, with such a city disadvantage.

Being I've played since Civ 1, I have no problem with empire management. I just have to figure out these Civ 3 nuances again. Back to the drawing board.

 

[Nathiri]

Ok...thanks guys....maybe it's just been so long I forgot how different 3 was. I recall hating the late game relentless navy from the AI etc. But, must've forgot it's a land grab early on, even in Chieftain.

When I saw there were 11 opponents and I was land locked on an island I could only fit 7 cities on, I probably should've known better and started another game right away. Might've still won space race....that was my aim, after conquest in my prior game. But, I didn't have a big tech lead, and it may have gotten even worse later, with such a city disadvantage.

Being I've played since Civ 1, I have no problem with empire management. I just have to figure out these Civ 3 nuances again. Back to the drawing board.

You still can win with less cities, especially on lower difficulties. Dont think you cant put weights on yourself to overcome. I'm sure you still could have won that game. If you couldnt with less cities than 1 city challenges wouldnt be a thing. It is also entirely possible to win with a little expansion of your own by taking AI cities instead even on Emperor (in fact probably best on Emperor because of AI expanding faster with their discounts).