My take on Civ 3's problems...it's a strategy game that lacks strategy

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave


To those who have been disagreeing with me, think of it this way. Missing out on a Wonder early in the game can easily mean you waste enough shields and time to double the number of cities you have, and put a unit in each one.

Hence the decision should to build should not be undertaken lightly or without adequate information.

Poor tactical decisions and under developed strategies often result in disasters. Indeed, they almosy assure a catastrophe.



Tell me if you think the game is better because of this "winner take all" decision. Then defend your position.

You advocate multiple wonders? What is so impressive and wonderful about the Great Pyramids is that there is only one of them.



Or if they limited each Civ to X number of Wonders, and made them all universal (anyone can build them.)

Huh? which Civ cant build which wonder? Or is this referring to multiple instances?

 

[Mullet Crusader]

I'd like to jump in about wonders here. Crow is right, the descision to start a wonder should not be taken lightly or without adeqaute information, however, seems the only way to get the information would be to examine all your opponents cities, which could cost a lot of money, something you may not have depending on your playin style, which, yeah, is your fault if ya don't have the money, but most people aren't willing to check all the other guy's cities out costing time and money (mostly just money) period. Unless you want to spend all your cash on finding out how far along someone is building the wonder you want, chosing to build a wonder is an absolute shot in the dark. Soooooo many times i've been 5 turns from finishing the Pyramids, just to have someone insih right before me. Bastards. And that sometimes means i have to blow a million shields away, pissing me off. This wouldn't make the game les fun if it happened once in awhile, but it happens a few times a game usually. I do think wonders should remain one of a kind things, because whats so special about a wonder if there's a bunch of them? If i was going to do anything about changing wonders, i would make it a seperate thing from shields, like, you could click "Build Wonder" on the city display, and the city would start building the wonder you selected, and would build all other things (units, improvements) slower. That way, if some other Civ snaked the wonder out from under your nose, you wouldn't lsoe massive shields and it wouldn't suck so bad when it happened. Thats just my idea though. I don't entirely agree with Dave on the UU point. Your UU doesn't decide WHEN you go to war, its just a nice bonus, however, Firaxis should definitely rethink some of them, i mean, the Eqyptian's War Chariot is all but useless, seriousely, thats pretty much the only reason i don't play as the Egyptians more often, when i think of a UU, i think of a powerful, long-lasting UU like the Panzer or Samurai, not the stinkin War Chariot, especially when the time between when you've researched The Wheel, and when you're researching Horse Riding is usually so slow.

 

[Cpt. Cynical]

I would like to state that I don't think that Flavor Dave was trying to insult or disenfranchise anyone by stating his opinion on some of Civ3's design decisions. He merely wanted to exercise his right as a free person and a Civ player.

As a fan of Civ2 and 3, I find a few of the decisions in Civ3 annoying. The execution of strategic resources was, IMHO, poor. Zouave's great iron mine example above illustrates the situation well.

What casual gamers call design flaws or lack of play-testing, hard-core gamers may call a great opportunity to turn a lemon into lemonade. However, I don't think that the casual gamer is wrong for wanting to sit down and maybe, just maybe, enjoy a strategy game without flaws that make it discouraging... Especially since Civ3 was meant to attract new gamers to the strategy genre.

I think the problem with Civ3 is that its main flaw (poorly tested strategic resource system) discourages the new gamers, although it possibly gives hard-core gamers some great challenge to adapt to. There are just some folks who get tired of fighting riflemen with archers. I mean, how fun or interesting would history be if England had riflemen during the Hundred Years War, but France was forced to use archers because they didn't have any saltpeter or iron?

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Cpt. Cynical
I would like to state that I don't think that Flavor Dave was trying to insult or disenfranchise anyone by stating his opinion on some of Civ3's design decisions. He merely wanted to exercise his right as a free person and a Civ player.

As a fan of Civ2 and 3, I find a few of the decisions in Civ3 annoying. The execution of strategic resources was, IMHO, poor. Zouave's great iron mine example above illustrates the situation well. . .

You liked that one?

Here's an even better example.

It's December. I still hadn't modded out Firaxis' crazy values. I desperately sought iron, and there was none on the small continent I was on. I built the Lightouse and started sending out galleys looking. Very luckily (and unusually) I found an uninhabited island WITH IRON! I rushed a settler and workers there, and started building the mine.

The town was five turns before completing the harbor when a worker finished a road to the town from the iron. Three turns later the iron was EXHAUSTED. Game over. Hello Editor.

This is ridiculous that some resource tiles never get exhausted and others do almost immediately. If it was pure luck it would be dumb enough, but this may have also been a screw-the-human AI cheat. The iron was never even connected to "my trade network" as the harbor had not been built.

This kind of nonsense is the result of rushed programming and no playtesting.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Alot of the "disagreements" with me seem to be from people who think I'm saying the game is too hard. That's NOT NOT NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are fewer distinct paths.

One example is the lack of the "sweet spot." That was a fairly minor point from my perspective, but has gotten a ton of discussion.

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would think getting rid of the pattern makes your decisions more varied. With the sweet spot, you have to decide whether or not to go for the sweet spot, with the concomitant effect on your future cities. Deciding to go for the sweet spots will unquestionably slow you down. It's a tradeoff...slower to get going, but better cities.

In Civ 3, you just pick the first good spot. It doesn't impact your next city.

And it doesn't affect whether you're going to play perfectionist or expanionist.

Finally, I wish people would read more carefully that I was NOT the kind of Civver who always played perfectionist. I was the kind of civver who could play either way, depending on the terrain.

If you didn't notice when I wrote that before, please notice now.

In closing...focus not on how hard the game is but how varied.

PS...if you don't like my definition of strategy, fine. What the hell ever. Forgive me for trying to define a shorthand term.

RESOLVED: Compared to Civ 2, Civ 3 has fewer distinct by viable paths, fewer non-obvious decisions.

Carry on.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave
Alot of the "disagreements" with me seem to be from people who think I'm saying the game is too hard. That's NOT NOT NOT what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are fewer distinct paths.

Grand strategy is the balance of power between nations. Those who can best rally forces in expectation of conflict will win -- regardless of the exact game mechanics. This grand strategy is profoundly influenced by the availability of resources. Do you trade? Or do you take what you need? Do you have allies? Who is your enemy? These strategic decisions are part of Civ3, and that's what makes it a strategy game. The timing of war and peace are the crucial factors. Knowing when wars will break out, and who will be involved, will allow one's military to be at maximum readiness. Knowing when peace is advisable is just as important.

The minor issue of initial city placement (or any individual city placement) is a mere tactical consideration. Put the city anywhere, and the game will retain its character as a strategy game.

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm5/

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave
Alot of the "disagreements" with me seem to be from people who think I'm saying the game is too hard. ... One example is the lack of the "sweet spot." That was a fairly minor point from my perspective, but has gotten a ton of discussion.

Which can be read as "i cant win Civ3 using Civ2 tactics".

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would think getting rid of the pattern makes your decisions more varied.

Frankly, I dont see how being able to predict where resources are going to appear adds to strategy, tactics or decision paths.

You still have to decide a whole host of things: build closer to the jungle for the luxuries that come there, or right on the river to skip the aquaduct, or maybe closer to the Tundra where oil may appear; or skip it all and lock in that coastal spot.

In Civ 3, you just pick the first good spot. It doesn't impact your next city.

Maybe YOU do, I survey the terrain and consider issues such as the above; as well as strategic ones such as blocking a northern or southern Civ's expansion.

if you don't like my definition of strategy, fine. What the hell ever. Forgive me for trying to define a shorthand term.

Well, it was the titular central point of your thesis.

RESOLVED: Compared to Civ 2, Civ 3 has fewer distinct by viable paths, fewer non-obvious decisions.

Disagree. It has DIFFERENT decision paths some more subtle and with an element of risk involved.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Mullet Crusader
I'd like to jump in about wonders here. Crow is right, the descision to start a wonder should not be taken lightly or without adeqaute information, however, seems the only way to get the information would be to examine all your opponents cities, which could cost a lot of money, something you may not have depending on your playin style, which, yeah, is your fault if ya don't have the money, but most people aren't willing to check all the other guy's cities out costing time and money (mostly just money) period.

The easy way: Establish embassies ASAP

Press F7 to see where GWs are being built

Investigate JUST the city where the Great Ball of Twine is being built. Compare turns to go with what your fast building cities are capable of.

----

This minute I am planning the *screw* the Egyptians. They have the the Colossus 20 turns away from complete. I can do it in 12ish (accelerated option), so i am waiting a few turns so as to inflict MAXIMUM shield loss on their effort.

Bwuhahahaha!

 

[MeestaDude]

Your argument is that there is a lack of 'strategy' in Civ3 (at least I'm assuming that by the title and the general content). With any hypothesis, if you can find evidence that it is false then obviously doesn't stand.

Therefore:

Hypothesis: Civ3 is a strategy game that lacks strategy!

You then attempt to show information to support that hypothesis (which you did very well). One of the things you put in as a support of the hypothesis is the sweet spot pattern, so that is one facet that people have attacked.

As Crow has said, since a definition of strategy is critical to understanding what you mean, we then have the arguments about what strategy and tactics are (indeed you made the distinction in reply to my first post).

I simply tried to play along with that new definition in my second post.

I believe that a claim that Civ3 is a strategy game with a lack of strategy is false. And have tried to show that. Are there ways it could be improved? Most certainly, but are the factors described really a limitation to strategy? I'd say no.

In the end though, in a comparison with Civ 2 are there more or less distinct paths to victory?

I'd say more, I've personally found extraordinary variation in game experiences and the strategies involved with each one. Some of the very factors described, such as random terrain and the special resource system have facilitated these experiences.

As for non-obvious decisions, perhaps if the damage from missing a wonder is so devastating there is much more to be considered when making decisions in Civ3. Earlier civs seemed much more cut and dry to me in the approaches you could take, in my opinion. It also seemed much more easier to classify my Civ2 experiences into easily recognizable categories of the same type, while each Civ3 game on average ends up with its own individual feel and history.

So I would claim as my conclusion that for me, compared to Civ2, Civ3 has more distinct paths to victory (or defeat) than Civ2, and more non-obvious decisions.

 

[Bamspeedy]

To those who have been disagreeing with me, think of it this way. Missing out on a Wonder early in the game can easily mean you waste enough shields and time to double the number of cities you have, and put a unit in each one.

This is why alot of players don't even try for the Pyramids, especially on the higher levels. Do you want the Pyramids now, causing your expansion to slow down early, but hopefully make up for it later with the free granaries, or do you skip the pyramids, hoping to either capture it later, or just dealing without the free granaries? Is a decision like that a tactic, or strategy?

The easy way: Establish embassies ASAP

Press F7 to see where GWs are being built

Investigate JUST the city where the Great Ball of Twine is being built. Compare turns to go with what your fast building cities are capable of.

Some players playing on a huge map with max civs don't have the money to investigate 16 cities. This may be where some of the frustration comes from.

In this case the player needs to get a map of the civ's territory and look at the city's population and terrain and make a pretty good guess as to how far they are. Actually spend the money investigating the AI cities that look like they have the potential to beat you. No, this isn't something that a newby civ3 player would know, but stuff like that comes with experience. If it looks like you might lose, you can always add workers/settlers from nearby cities, to boost population/production (if you have the happiness improvements to handle the population, of course).

Some of the frustrations also comes from players playing on island maps, or situations where they have no idea where the other civs are and one of those 'unknown' civs get the wonder. Before mapmaking, or having contact with other civs, this is just a risk you have to take. Risks are part of strategy, IMO. More experienced players have a good idea of the situation and can take a calculated risk on whether or not they can get the wonder. Most experienced players also try and get further into the tech tree, so they have another wonder to be able to switch to in case they lose out on the wonder.

And, of course you can always just let the AI build the wonders for you. While they spend all those shields, you are building up a military to take it from them. In fact, attack their other cities while they are building the wonder. Their most productive city is busy building that wonder, so you won't have to worry about that city producing more units for you to deal with. Hint: Just don't fortify on any tile that the 'wonder' city is using, as you will slow down the production of the wonder. The same turn they complete the wonder, it is yours!

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy


Some players playing on a huge map with max civs don't have the money to investigate 16 cities. This may be where some of the frustration comes from.

If F7 reports 16 cities already building the Big Ball of Twine, I daresay that you are behind and further investigation is probably foolhardy as it a VERY LONG shot that they all just started and that you have a city that can out produce each and every one of them.


OTOH if there are just one or two building it, you can get a feel for whether you have a shot without investigating by the city size and terrain it is located at, as you mentioned. Then if it still looks promising, investigate one or both.

The point is that it is not nearly "blind luck" or a shot in the dark it was made out to be. There is LOTS of free info available in addition to some more costly but detailed precision info.

Risks are part of strategy, IMO.

Indeed it is. As is evaluating those risks in the context of the strategy you are pursuing and evaluating the new information that comes along each turn.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The minor issue of initial city placement (or any individual city placement) is a mere tactical consideration.

In Civ 3, you're right. In Civ 2, you're wrong.

QED.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot

Have you played Civ 2? Straight question.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by MeestaDude
I believe that a claim that Civ3 is a strategy game with a lack of strategy is false.

I didn't mean "has no strategy." I meant, "has less strategy than Civ 2, and less than it should have." That's why I spent so much of the post comparing the two games.

In the end though, in a comparison with Civ 2 are there more or less distinct paths to victory?

I'd say more,

There are more paths to victory, maybe. I was focusing on how you manage and develop your civ. That's why I wrote so much about how Civ 3 has far less scope for big and small viable civs, and far less scope for peaceful and aggressive civs.

The different victory conditions are a plus. I can't say for sure whether that plus outweigh the minuses.

Have I mentioned the lack of ZOCs here? That's one clear way they've made it harder to be a small peaceful civ. You can't set up a strong position and seal the border.

In Civ 2, you were always being faced with the decision, should I stop expanding in this direction and create a defensive chokepoint? The lack of ZOCs make good chokepoints much rarer in Civ 3.

This is NOT NOT NOT an area that diminishes overall strategy, since what this change takes away, it gives back, by giving you more options for attacking. It's also harder for the AI civs to create chokepoints.

Have Firaxis mentioned why they did this?

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot
The easy way: Establish embassies ASAP

Press F7 to see where GWs are being built

Investigate JUST the city where the Great Ball of Twine is being built.

I've looked and looked, and I can't find in the manual how to do missions before espionage.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

I've looked and looked, and I can't find in the manual how to do missions before espionage.

After you establish an embassy, click on the "E" in the lower right (the one below 'D' for diplomacy). You'll get a list of civ's that you established embassies with. Chose one and you will get an option to investigate cities. This is 'way' before Espionage.

I quit playing Civ2 years ago when Deity became the same old same old, no challange.

 

[Flavor Dave]

I spent many hours this weekend playing the first part of many different games, to sort of check up on some of the stuff we've been discussing on this thread. I only played the first part, because that's where the problem is. Like I've written, the late game is much better in 3 than 2.

Originally posted by Flavor Dave
THE SUMMARY:

1. Randomizing the special food and shield and trade resource placement has taken away the decision of whether to concentrate on getting in the sweet spot, and reduced the importance of the decision as to being perfectonist, and the decision whether to build the Super Science City.

Just to make it clear, here, I'm not talking about the tradeable resources, but the cows and wheats and such.

I stand by what I wrote. The lack of the pattern makes Civ 3 less strategic than Civ 2.

But there is a countervailing force here, esp. if you are an expansionist civ and you have a scout. How far away should you build the next city, either to claim land or to claim a resource? In my last savegame, I was the English, and my scout found a very nice region of easily irrigated plains, with several cows and a couple of gold hills. I expanded aggressively, hemming in the Germans. This has caused many wars. They keep sending in a settler and a spearman, and I keep insisting they leave (once I've made sure my defenses are in order.) I'm behind the other 4 civs in the tech race, but I'm having alot of fun. The Germans built Munich in a "gap" in my territory, but I'm letting it sit. I've taken the first German city, and the next one is Berlin!! I have an army of spearmen and an army of swordsmen. I have just gotten chivalry. Wish me luck!!

VERDICT...thinking very precisely about this issue, Civ 3 has more or less as much strategy as Civ 2 on city placement. My opinion is that if you have a scout, there's more strategy in Civ 3. Otherwise there's less.

I still think Civ 3 would be better if they kept a pattern and a sweet spot. I still think that the lack of a sweet spot undermines your choices. BUT BUT BUT...much less than some of the other problems that narrow your range of choices on Civ size. Given those other problems, the lack of a sweet spot is minor.

In the game I'm playing now, I decided to expand as much as was judicious. And it wasn't anywhere near as aggressive as what you could pull off in Civ 2...AI is smarter (good), corruption is outlandish and crippling (very bad), temples are more expensive (neutral in and of itself, but it does make aggressive expansion less of an option.)

2. The way in which special resources are implemented has actually taken away decisions. If you have the resource, you use it If you don’t, you acquire it. If you can’t acquire it, you re-start. (This is more of an early game problem, but then, the huge problem with Civ 3 is that the early game is too hard and/or the late game is too easy, depending on your level. This was a problem in Civ 2, but in Civ 3, it’s ridiculous.)

I haven't changed my mind here; in fact, I feel more strongly that this is poorly done. Again, I think there should have been more resources, but their use should be limited. Making iron or coal an all-or-nothing affair means you make fewer decisions than if you had 3 times as many resources, but you could only have 3 workers building RRs for every coal resource per turn (for example.) Then you'd have to decide if you could live with a slow growth in your RR network, if you only had one coal. Or whether you needed to grow it ASAP, and needed to acquire another coal resource.

3. Unique Units, combined with Golden Ages, have made decisions about when to go to war and when to try to build wonders about as difficult as the decision about whether or not to have your pitcher bunt when there’s a runner on first base and none out.

I've been more "aggressive" about not being aggressive when I have my UU and GA. I still think this is a problem, in that *IF* you've decided to go to war, the UU and GA make your decision for you. I mean, if you're about to get Riders, you'll wait, won't you? But I will admit that war in other eras is not as tough as I'd first thought. It was a matter of me forcing myself to fight without the UU and GA in effect.

It can be done...but it's still smarter to wait, if the Rider is coming up soon. A substantially smaller problem than I'd first thought, but still a problem.

4. Getting rid of the tricks for rushing WoWs was good, but the inability of a city to make use of wastage when you get beat to a WoW makes the cure worse than the disease. It’s not a calculated risk whether or not to embark on building a wonder, it’s blink luck.

If I could find it in the manual where you can spy with only embassies, this wouldn't be bothering me as much.

But you can never convince me that the punishment of wasting 180 shields early in the game fits the crime of missing a wonder by 2 turns.

Also, I had high hopes that Civ 3 would rely less on the city-states and more on empire-wide building. Just another way this could have been implemented...corporation makes the "freight" unit possible. It costs 40 shields, and can be disbanded for 30 shields.

5. The higher cost of units, the less-varying cost of them, and the lack of spies has taken away the difficult decision of balancing your army between all the various kinds of units, and reducing shield waste.

I don't think people understood me here, or maybe they agreed. What I meant was, in any war, you want a certain mix of defensive, fast attacking, and bombard units. That's no different in 3.

What's different is that in Civ 2, the units were cheaper, and the percentage difference between a tank and a Mech was alot higher. So when you had developed cities, cranking out 40-70 shields per turn, there was alot of potential for wastage. You had to decide how much wastage you could live with, in your efforts to balance your army.

I stand by that criticism. If you played alot of Civ 2, I think you'll know what I mean. Your instinct is to set all of your cities with 17 or 25 shields on MIs, your cities with 40-49 shields on tanks, your cities with 30-34 shields on spies, your cities with 35-39 shields on howies. But what if that doesn't produce enough howies? Or too many spies?

6. The loss of food caravans have taken away a strategic option.

Not alot of discussion about this. At least this should have been available later in the game.

With the high corruption, along with the high AI aggression toward weak civs (and the juiced-up “cheating” of the civs early in the game) have combined to take away your decision as to how big of a civ you want. The variation between the smallest viable civ and the most aggressive expansion strategy is MUCH MUCH smaller in Civ 3 than Civ 2.

In one of my games, I was the Egyptians on an island that held 9 cities (IIRC), and 3 of those had at least some arctic tiles. So that's a pretty small civ.

I built a city overseas, and sent along a worker, just for the heck of it. The worker mined and roaded a gold hill, and the city had a fish. I was in republic. When I quit to start up a new game, that city had 15 arrows...14 of them corruption.

Please remember that I'm not using any of the patches.

The ridiculous overseas corruption is a stupid feature. I cannot believe it was playtested.

One question...if I edit the FP to be a city improvement, would that work? Could I rush it without a GL, and build as many as I wanted?

That would be one way to get around this stupid, game limiting problem.

8. Disease in flood plains is a matter of random luck, and can cripple your early game. Pointless change.

I stand by what I wrote. It doesn't bother me later in the game, but early in the game, to have your city shrink, and have that delay your second city, is dumb.

But I built many a city on flood plains, to test this, and it never f'ed up my beginning again. So I'll chalk up the one time it happened to freakish bad luck, which is hard to eliminate from a game.

Because I was experimenting, I forced myself to try all kinds of different strategies. My opinion, still, is that "geography is destiny" much more in Civ 2 than Civ 3.

You can make the argument that the challenge in 3 is in dealing with your geography, overcoming your adversity. OK.

But I still believe Civ 2 gives you more control of your destiny.

 

[MeestaDude]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave


There are more paths to victory, maybe. I was focusing on how you manage and develop your civ. That's why I wrote so much about how Civ 3 has far less scope for big and small viable civs, and far less scope for peaceful and aggressive civs.


---
My personal experience has shown a far greater diversity in methods for developing a civilization in Civ3 than in Civ2. I've not just played a one city, few city, or mega-sized civilization game, but have gone through several variations of each (including the very fun, highly militaristic single city game). In Civ2 I felt as if I was being stuck into patterns of play far too often with less deviation. Still a great game, but I don't see it as the pinnacle of civilization as many more nostalgic gamers might put it.
---


The different victory conditions are a plus. I can't say for sure whether that plus outweigh the minuses.

Have I mentioned the lack of ZOCs here? That's one clear way they've made it harder to be a small peaceful civ. You can't set up a strong position and seal the border.

In Civ 2, you were always being faced with the decision, should I stop expanding in this direction and create a defensive chokepoint? The lack of ZOCs make good chokepoints much rarer in Civ 3.


---
I personally prefer the Zone of Control system in Civ3, except that I wish it would be a little stronger. An enemy force should be able to pass through the side of a defensive position. Units with zone of control should exist earlier in the game than Cavalry, and fortresses should provide the capability of either doing much more than a single point of damage, or forcing a confrontation to any enemy unit trying to pass through the adjacent territories.

In the end though, it is still possible to seal a chokepoint or border in Civ3. The Civ2 zone of control made very little sense in many regards. And in Civ3 you can't jsut send one or two units, you must have an entire army to hold a long border or chokepoint (which makes sense, if your gonna hold a line you better have an overwhelming force entrenched along it).

I do have a gripe with chokepoint handling in Civ3, but mostly in terms of how the AI is completely unable to comprehend the military tactics of effectively smashing or circumventing a chokepoint. It is easy to exploit the myopic military tactics of Civ3's AI to defeat them with a significantly smaller force. As anyone who has played Earth can attest to, if you hold the Middle East you affectively guide the course of every transcontintental war that takes place since the AI is obsessed with overland, single-target, warfare.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
After you establish an embassy, click on the "E" in the lower right (the one below 'D' for diplomacy).

Where is this "E?" The lower right of where?

 

[Crow T Robot]

On the box in the lower right of the screen (unless you have turned off the interface). You have to have embassies ofr the E to appear, then you only have 2 espionage options: investigate city, and I think steal a tech.