I, I just Don't Understand... What Happened?

[ulik_kel_droma]

Civ3 veterans, please bear with a Civ3 n00b.

*Begin Rant*

I've been playing Civ since for at least ten years now. Since then I've played countless hours of Civ2, Clolonization, Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire. It's a wonder why it took so long for me to adopt Civ3. But, now I have, to my dismay. What happened? We'd made so much progress with Alpha Centauri, and while Civ definitely, 100% has it's improvements, it's taken a step back in the one place that mattered to me.

I have spent countless hours, days, even months of time playing Civ related games. The one thing that I enjoy most about the games was the political intrigue. I was never a fan of war, nor trading, but I loved political manipulation. I envisioned Civ3 to expand on this, but all I see is limitations. What happened to all of the diplomatic states? Why can you either have peace or war. What happened to "no contact" and "cease fire." Can anyone tell me why you can't create a mutual protection pact until the industrial age? Or was the Medo-Persian alliance thought up. And why is it even more difficult to get an alliance versus my enemies?

Honestly. I'd really like to know what they were thinking. Now I'm pidgeon-holed into the role of military strategist. Something I don't enjoy. And I played the game on Regent and every civ aroung me allied against me. I had no strategic resources, no significant technology... No reason for everyone to come up against me. Now if a bigger map enables more civs why doesn't the diplomatic advisor screen accomodate more portraits? Oh why Civ, whhhhhyyyyyyyy?????????

*End Rant*


I'm sorry for focusing on what I saw as a flaw. Being that this was the most drawing aspect of the game, I'm most affected by it. Again, Civ has made some major improvements: trade, resources, colonies, not going overboard with amies, ect... I just wish that they didn't limit my playability.

 

[Allemand]

It's a war game, pure and simple.

 

[ulik_kel_droma]

I remember one remarkable game, actually my most memorable, of Civ2 I allied with the Mongol queen almost from the start and while she took half the map through conquest I took the other through politics, espionage with the *occasional* conflict. By the time we finished we had divided the world in two. I almost never had to take the fighting into my own hands. That spoke volumes about the versatility the game lent its players. Now I can't go through one game without being annoyed or totally bored.


Yet, I still play..............

 

[Allemand]

If that's what you want, then Civ III can do it for you. Just pick an ally and stick with them for the entire game. You may have to send a few troops to spearhead the effort, but the other civ will do the bulk of the fighting. You just have to watch their back.

What I liked about Civ II were the game management tools, which Civ III has fallen short on.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Allemand
It's a war game, pure and simple.

Actually, Civ 3 has become a CULTURE game; it is not really a descendant of Civ 2 at all what with this Culture Flipping crap and millennia of annoying land-grabbing at the start.

What I miss is not being able to pay off civs to go to war while we sit back. That happened historical many times; the British routinely paid off states to declare war on France - Austria in 1809 for example.

 

[BlueMonday]

Hey man, I sail in the same boat as you. I've been playing the Civ series for longer than I can remember now. I may have played it as a fetus, I don't really know. But I do know that Civ III has lost something from Civ II.

I'm not sure exactly what it is. I can tell you some of the big things that piss me off (like this whole optimum cities thing, and corruption being way the f*** out of control). But I think more than anything it's the little things that I can't really put my finger on.

It's a different game, that's for sure. But I really can't tell you what I don't like about it. I know I don't like it, but why?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Zouave
What I miss is not being able to pay off civs to go to war while we sit back. That happened historical many times; the British routinely paid off states to declare war on France - Austria in 1809 for example.

Huh? I regularly pay off civs to ally with me against an opponent and I don't even pay in hard cash; sometimes tech, resource or even a far-off 'useless' city will do the trick. Then I sit back and let them do the fighting, particularly when I don't really want the target cities.

In Civ3, you'll have to be more resourceful a bit.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by BlueMonday
I'm not sure exactly what it is. I can tell you some of the big things that piss me off (like this whole optimum cities thing, and corruption being way the f*** out of control). But I think more than anything it's the little things that I can't really put my finger on.

I think the corruption is ok. Just place your 'production' cities carefully, around your two capitals. Your other 'colonial' cities shld only be for staking out territories (for resources, present and potential, and luxuries).

It's a different game, that's for sure. But I really can't tell you what I don't like about it. I know I don't like it, but why?

I think Civ3 is a whole lot more realistic than Civ2. I don't think there's any real historical case of a nation buying up the entire world. I love it.

Civ3 is no Civ2. You'll have to work out whole new strategies. And always maintain a big military. That'll make the AI talk to you.

 

[IronicWarrior19]

Soz u can't handle the warz d00dz, if u can't take the heat, don't play, and remember j00 iz not 733t.

Moderator Action: IronicWarrior19 has been permanetly banned. No need to report him anymore. Thanks.
PaleHorse76

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Heffalump]

I find the diplomacy options in Civ III to be much better than CivII. So-called allies were fairly useless in Civ II. In the end i never bothered..

But with CivIII I pretty regularly make MPs and I've more than once paid off someone to go to war with an enemy. Very useful. And diplomacy IS useful. Sometimes i'll concentrate on making allies of the neighbor with whom I share the most undefendable border. With my flanks safe i can often roll through long periods of the 19th and 20th centures in democracy (building up a tech lead) while everyone else is shifting to communism to fight in wars that I help foster

 

[ulik_kel_droma]

I find the diplomacy options in Civ III to be much better than CivII.

I don't see how just having war and peace early on is better than Civ2. I think it's just too simplistic. And the AI is too eager to go to war with you. It makes no sense. It takes a lot of fun out of the game.

 

[Dell19]

Originally posted by ulik_kel_droma
Now if a bigger map enables more civs why doesn't the diplomatic advisor screen accomodate more portraits? Oh why Civ, whhhhhyyyyyyyy?????????

I believe there is a way to view the extra players but I cannot remember it at the moment. Something like shift + p ...

 

[player2]

Sounds like Europa Universalis 2 would be a closer fit your preferences; it has a more 'serious' atmosphere than civ, and focuses equally on political strategy, expansion, and warfare. It's an excellent game, almost as good a civ really, but you should try it first as it plays very differently from the civ series.

 

[roalan]

Civ 1-2-3 is not even close to a war game. It may be somewhat close to Risk or Axis and Allies but they are not much of a war game either. If you want war gamews try 3rd, Reich 4th ED or Advanced 3R. There are MANY games for that elk. If you want a computer war game that is fairly easy to beat try TOAOW 1&2 .
Harpoon 1& 2 are OK.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by roalan
Civ 1-2-3 is not even close to a war game. It may be somewhat close to Risk or Axis and Allies but they are not much of a war game either. If you want war gamews try 3rd, Reich 4th ED or Advanced 3R. There are MANY games for that elk. If you want a computer war game that is fairly easy to beat try TOAOW 1&2 .
Harpoon 1& 2 are OK.

Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich is on PC?!?! Where? That game was the most formative part of my strategic development in my youth. I'd love to play that on a PC.

 

[MrBiggBoy]

Originally posted by IronicWarrior19
Soz u can't handle the warz d00dz, if u can't take the heat, don't play, and remember j00 iz not 733t.

HA! Don't you want to STRANGLE him???

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by Dell19


I believe there is a way to view the extra players but I cannot remember it at the moment. Something like shift + p ...

shift-d

or click the little d at the bottom right.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Huh? I regularly pay off civs to ally with me against an opponent and I don't even pay in hard cash; sometimes tech, resource or even a far-off 'useless' city will do the trick. Then I sit back and let them do the fighting, particularly when I don't really want the target cities.

In Civ3, you'll have to be more resourceful a bit.

That's one of my standard strategies too. I've kept other civs busy attacking each other for centuries, while I build or chew up my closest neighbors. Most of the time, the price is very reasonable, too!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Shaitan

Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich is on PC?!?! Where? That game was the most formative part of my strategic development in my youth. I'd love to play that on a PC.

Ahh the good ole days

I used to play 3rd Reich forever in search of a plan that could save the French 2-3 infantry from certain destruction at the hands of a 4-6 Panzer division.

Did you ever try War in the Pacific or War in Europe? I had a map posted on the wall with magnetic counters for WinP. Once played a campaign over two years...great fun.

Bill

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Ahh the good ole days

I used to play 3rd Reich forever in search of a plan that could save the French 2-3 infantry from certain destruction at the hands of a 4-6 Panzer division.

Did you ever try War in the Pacific or War in Europe? I had a map posted on the wall with magnetic counters for WinP. Once played a campaign over two years...great fun.

Bill

The French could not be saved, especially when I was Germany. I developed a gambit strategy where I put Russia on hold and dedicated the entirety of Germany's might against France and England. 3 out of 4 times I would have England conquered before America could declare. Then all that was needed was some half way decent defense on a couple beach tiles in Europe. Russia had a bad time after that.

No, I didn't try either of those other games. 3rd Reich, Tito and Jerusalem were my WWII era games. Gettysburg and Antietam were my favorite Civil War era. I learned strategy with 3rd Reich and tactics with Gettysburg. Those games will be with me forever.