I think i might like Civ3

candle

Prince
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
331
Well as you may have read im a very long time CivII player. 1997-today actully. I bought C3C about a year ago but the first time i played it i didnt like it, mainly the resource issue where I have to keep going to find new ones to keep my empire moving, bugged me. Also alot of my old CivII stuff doesnt mean jack anymore.

Some things I really like my 2nd time to play though. I like the culture, it prevents the AI from building a city 1 square away and then taking my resources.

the diffrent ways to win. It will take some time to get used to the fact I dont have to conquer everyone or get to space first
 
Welcome!

War Academy is excellent place to learn about new game strategies and management, I'd recommend you to take a look ;)

If you have simple question (can I do this, or what will this do etc.) visit Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions.

Civilization III stories section is good to literally see how others play. Its sub forum, Civ3 - Succession Games, is good place too - in succession game players play limited amount of turns and pass save onwards to another player, (great way to learn! :) )

I'd recommend you to look for Rapid EXpansion in war academy (can't recall where it was) to see how to keep up with "Aggressive AI settling"(was supposed to be different from civ 2).

Few tips
Try also avoiding building every building you can, into every town. DO NOT build 3-5 wonders at the same time. (1 per nation is enough, I usually play without wonders, ofcourse matter of taste).

Other tip is too keep 1 worker per city you have.

Rule of the thumb is: Irrigate brown (plains) and mine green (grasslands)(exeption if they have+food resource, then irrigate it) (thanks CommandoBob for teaching me that in "Succession Games" sub-forum!).

If you run into problems or want to improve even more, creating a thread and posting a save is good idea :)

I use CIVReplay-> MapStat to see what trades I can do and do avoid riots in cities, others recommend CivAssist 2, both are great, you do not have to use them, but they'll ease your game Micro Management quite a bit... and decrease chance of 25 cities suddenly bursting into riots.

Last, but not least, always fix your game with Latest Patches. (check if you have same versions).

Welcome among us!
 
lol, yea I know the feeling there, I went last night total conquest out of habit. Then again I did the same in SMAC and SMACX lol
 
it just seems odd you dont have to destory everyone on the map to win, though i prefer killing everyone off, its just so much more fun to eliminate everyone but myself.
 
candle said:
it just seems odd you dont have to destory everyone on the map to win, though i prefer killing everyone off, its just so much more fun to eliminate everyone but myself.

Funny, it seems more odd to me that you expect civ to be more like some bash and kill game, then a game which emphasizes traits which have made civilizations succesful.
 
Funny, it seems more odd to me that you expect civ to be more like some bash and kill game, then a game which emphasizes traits which have made civilizations succesful.

I dunno think about it, if rome had conqured the world, and killed all the barbarians ect, wed have peace on earth already
 
Or was it Rome's desire to conquer the world the reason we DON'T have peace on earth...
 
candle said:
I dunno think about it, if rome had conqured the world, and killed all the barbarians ect, wed have peace on earth already

First off, there's a myriad of obstacles which would have prevented that, such as the lack of seafaring technology for Romans to cross the Atlantic. Second, there didn't exist peace even within Roman borders, e.g. what happened in Judea, and the servile wars. So, no, we wouldn't have peace on Earth if Rome had conquered the world, at least not if the state of the Roman empire itself gives us an example of what such a state would work like. Lastly, more than what you've suggested makes a civilization successful. So, even if your idea about Rome conquering the world worked out as true, it still wouldn't bear on what I said above.
 
I dunno think about it, if rome had conqured the world, and killed all the barbarians ect, wed have peace on earth already

The pax romanus was kind of a myth IMO. After the beginning of the Empire (Caesar), there were innumerable civil wars between rivals to become emperor...

Anyway I digress. :)

The extra victory conditions allow for a lot more possiblities in mods, as you can see in the Conquests Medieval scenario where you can earn a massive amount of victory points by capturing Jerusalem and returning a holy relic to the city.

I personally don't find the "epic" game to be very exciting, I much prefer to play the various mods and scenarios included with the game or available on this site. :D
 
Civ3 from Civ2 is a big jump. Adding Civ traits, Unique Units (UU) and maybe the Golden Ages (memory is fuzzy) make each tribe a different experience. Add in the resources, wow, that's a game changer.

I lost my first two games on Cheiftain. The first I expected, the second was my own fault. I (Rome) needed Coal to build railroads but didn't try to take it from Egypt for a long, long time. Egypt won by score in that one. That was with PTW, not C3C.

After that I turned off 'Culturally linked starting positions'. I saw too much of Greece, Egypt and Carthage those first two games.

I like C3C better than CivII. Once, after playing at C3C for about a year, I started a game of CivII. By then I was accustomed to resources and CivII felt dumbed-down without it.
 
lol spoonwood, u sound a slight annoyed? Anyway it was a moronic comment from Candle (or a troll?)

Anyway I like to play all victory conditions except cultural. I cant stand it when you are scheming and building (or fighting) ur way to a conquest or diplo or space race victory and some poncy bastard wins a cultural victory. Fair enough its realistic (USA wins Earth's cultural race) but i dont like it as a game thingy.
 
Civ3 from Civ2 is a big jump. Adding Civ traits, Unique Units (UU) and maybe the Golden Ages (memory is fuzzy) make each tribe a different experience. Add in the resources, wow, that's a game changer.

I lost my first two games on Cheiftain. The first I expected, the second was my own fault. I (Rome) needed Coal to build railroads but didn't try to take it from Egypt for a long, long time. Egypt won by score in that one. That was with PTW, not C3C.

After that I turned off 'Culturally linked starting positions'. I saw too much of Greece, Egypt and Carthage those first two games.

I like C3C better than CivII. Once, after playing at C3C for about a year, I started a game of CivII. By then I was accustomed to resources and CivII felt dumbed-down without it.

the resouces being important for more than trade certainly are lol
 
Anyway I like to play all victory conditions except cultural. I cant stand it when you are scheming and building (or fighting) ur way to a conquest or diplo or space race victory and some poncy bastard wins a cultural victory. Fair enough its realistic (USA wins Earth's cultural race) but i dont like it as a game thingy.
You can check it on the Victory Screen (F8) and MapStat (part of CIVreplay, a game utility that is widely used) will keep track of everyone's culture for you.

Depending on your difficulty level, preventing a cultural victory shouldn't be too hard.
 
Top Bottom