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

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot
On the box in the lower right of the screen

"The screen." My capital city screen? The overview/map screen? My capital city view???

 

[Catt]

Kudos to you for re-examining some of your criticisms after taking into account other viewpoints. I am not surprised that you've changed your mind on some points; nor am I am surprised that you you haven't -- every player has differing sensibilities and preferences.

Originally posted by Flavor Dave
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. [. . . . . .] 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.

Not to nitpick, but it seems to me that the conclusion that the presence of a scout means "more strategy" and its absence means "less strategy" misses the real point of your discovery. Mustn't there be "more strategy" regardless, and a scout simply allows you wider strategic choices (through its faster movement)? I certainly use warriors to scout aggresively when I'm not an expansionist civ. The key lesson, I think, is that knowledge of your surrounding area is critical in order to effectively and strategically expand.

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.

I will often wait for Riders beacuse of their offensive utility, other times I will deliberately start a war with Riders 10 turns away; much less often because of wanting my GA to come at the beginning of a war. In fact, I often (depends on game circumstances, of course) want my GA to occur during peacetime as much as possible, and particularly around the early middle ages when so many wonders and newly available, expensive city improvements are available. Consequently, I often fight a war with horsies and swords, and bring the Riders online when I'm confident I can conclude the war quickly. Attack with a Rider; make peace a few turns later (or immediately); use the GA to build cathedrals, universities and marketplaces in those cities that don't already have them.

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

Along the right vertical edge of the "unit information box" which is located in the lower right corner of your map view screen (the basic playing screen) are a series of up to 5 buttons, going from top to bottom D - E - P - H - S. These buttons appear at different times (like "P" only appears when you get your first palace improvement and "S" only appears when the spacerace gets underway).

Before the discovery of Espionage and the construction of the Intelligence Agency, the only spy missions are "investigate city" and "steal technology."

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.

My God man! You must patch to 1.29f. Corruption is significantly altered since the initial release. It was very difficult to exceed the OCN and have anything but total corruption in the earliest versions of the game.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Actually, now that I see that Flavor Dave uses the unpatched version of Civ3, the whole thread has become irrelevant, in my opinion.

 

[MeestaDude]

Well it is appropriate to complain that the original version does not offer an adequate game. A patch should not be necessary to the enjoyment of any game, though if one of your problems are solved by such a patch and you have the ability to download it, then it is oft better to download than to complain. Without a patch Civ3 is a good game in my opinion, the patches help make it better (though I've yet to download 1.29 myself, I'm running off 1.21 because I don't like to patch in the middle of a game).

 

[Flavor Dave]

I don't have those letters; perhaps they came in a patch, or perhaps I turned something off.

I bought the game, played it a bit, was disappointed, and went back to Championship Manager. During the World Cup, I got off of that game. (You manage a team for years, or even forever, if you want...so going back to the same savegame was like watching half a movie, then watching the other half 5 weeks later. So I thought I'd give Civ 3 another try.)

These boards were so full of complaints about the patches that I didn't d/l any of them, and I was turning these issues over in my mind before 29 came out.

Is 21 better than 29?

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave
I’m still running the original version because I’ve heard such bad things about the patches, and I’ve been waiting for a patch that gets a good review (plus spent most of my time playing Championship Manager.)

 

[MeestaDude]

The letters should be right next to the unit description window. They are buttons, arrayed along the frame. They are by default turned on, and I'm not sure how one would turn them off. I assume you use the diplomacy button all the time, as I always initiate my diplomacy through the little D button.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Flavor Dave, I almost hung up Civ3 after the first game because it was surely a different beast than Civ2. (My very first game I was stuck in a jungle and got totally wasted by the AI, it was probably the worst starting point I ever had with the game.) So I can sure identify with you and expectations.

Championship Manager, I've tinkered with different versions of that over the years also, fun but you can't really buy the full version too easily over on this side of the Atlantic.

 

[Bamspeedy]

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.

Yes, corruption has been reduced in later patches. Police stations help reduce corruption that the original version didn't have. And the amount of corruption that has been reduced from building courthouses and police stations has been improved. Commercial civs experience even less corruption with 1.29f.

Also, when you have an overseas city, make sure that city is connected to your capital (that city has to have a harbor, and you need a harbor back home). Having the city connected to your capital reduces corruption by 15%. Alexman wrote a very good article on corruption in the strategy articles forum titled "Do you understand corruption?". It's a full in-depth analysis of how corruption is calculated. It can be pretty complicated with all the formulas, but you can pick up some more understanding of how corruption works.

 

[Bamspeedy]

These boards were so full of complaints about the patches that I didn't d/l any of them, and I was turning these issues over in my mind before 29 came out.

Many of the complaints are problems/bugs that they still had in previous versions. People are just upset that their particular 'gripe' hasn't changed. There usually isn't alot of 'new' bugs that appear in patches. And even the 'new' bugs are usually minor details, which are dwarfed when you look at all the really bad bugs they got rid of.

Bug = When I played with the original version, the game crashed everytime I got a galley near one of the poles.

'Gripe' = Culture flipping. It's part of the game, not a bug.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

"The screen." My capital city screen? The overview/map screen? My capital city view???

The map / main screen. See pic.

If this isnt onscreen, you might have the interface turned off, press "delete"

If you dont have a "D", you havent met anyone yet, if you dont have an "E", you havent any embassies, if you havent a "P" the people dont love you enough to build a palace yet. You may or may not have an "S" depending on whether the space race has started or it a game victory strategy.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

I didn't mean "has no strategy." I meant, "has less strategy than Civ 2, and less than it should have."

Maybe so. But what people are responding to is the titular assertion that it is "...a strategy game that LACKS strategy".

The tactical options and resources in v3 are *different* than v2. No one disagrees.

Your points all revolve around the fact that you cant use old Civ2 tactics and get the same results in Civ3, and some old options are missing.

Does that mean Civ3 "lacks strategy" or that it is inferior overall? Maybe. But it seems clear you havent yet developed a set of Civ3-centric tactics to effectively deal with the challenges and risks inherent in it.

It sounds like many of your complaints stem from the fact that you are still in the learning curve.

 

[Zachriel]

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

Posted by Flavor Dave
In Civ 3, you're right. In Civ 2, you're wrong.

Life is not always black and white, but often full of subtle shades of gray. The initial placement of any single city does not, and should not, determine the outcome of a game, especially with such an obvious solution. "Let's plant our city here so that we can build every wonder and smite our enemies with advanced armor and stealth bombers 6000 years from now."

Strategy, like complexity, arises on the edge of chaos.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Life is not always black and white, but often full of subtle shades of gray. The initial placement of any single city does not, and should not, determine the outcome of a game, especially with such an obvious solution. "Let's plant our city here so that we can build every wonder and smite our enemies with advanced armor and stealth bombers 6000 years from now."

Strategy, like complexity, arises on the edge of chaos.

Indeed.

And planning many centuries ahead so we can develop tanks to attack our neighbors is equally false.

Much of scientific research is serendipitous and cannot be predicted. The entire tech tree concept is weak.

More importantly, scientific research is often kick started and accelerated by WARFARE. But with their "Culture" obsession Firaxis fails to understand this also.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot
Maybe so. But what people are responding to is the titular assertion that it is "...a strategy game that LACKS strategy"[/B]

Right. And the reason I didn't play high school basketball is because I lack height. And quickness. And ability.

That doesn't mean I'm, respectively, without physical being, unable to move, and without even a shred of basketball ability.

I just didn't have enough, compared to the guys who made the team.

Lack has more than one meaning. I tried to define the meaning I was using in the post you quoted, but that didn't work.

I hope it's crystal clear now.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

Lack has more than one meaning. I tried to define the meaning I was using in the post you quoted, but that didn't work.

I took the lengthy post to be taken as points in support of the assertion that Civ3 lacked (was missing; or was short of or in need of) strategy.
Not a discussion of a few tactical options left out from previous versions.


Did you find your DEPH buttons?

 

[Agamemnus]

'Srategy, like complexity, arises on the edge of chaos.' (Zachriel)

And so does evolution, and from it life, but the creationists don't seem to care.

And the added complexity of the resource random placement adds to CivIII strategy, methinks.

But it's still hard to get yourself out of a disease-filled jungle for miles and miles around surrounded by mountains

----------------

Hmm..

'More importantly, scientific research is often kick started and accelerated by WARFARE. But with their "Culture" obsession Firaxis fails to understand this also.' (Zouave)

'Necessity is the mother of invention' (?) +
'War is a matter of vital importance to the state; a matter of life or death, the road either to survival or to ruin. Hence, it is imperative that it be studied thoroughly.' (Sun Tzu) = WAR is necessary for survival and so invention is therefore highly sought!

 

[sebanaj]

I disagree, if you play with realistic maps and scenario, set ai to ai science trade to 100, and world size science to 400, the science trade problem isn't there anymore
I'm with Babylon, and leading in technology, and i just built the great library, but also i reached a golden age before.
I absorved some greek cities because of culture flipping. While i was at war with cos they didn't want to leave my territory.
And they declared war.
So it's not really that bad. Just choose Marla Map, or the other guys version.

 

[Flavor Dave]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot
Did you find your DEPH buttons?

Yeah, which brings up another complaint (not on the topic of this thread, tho.)

The costs are waaay too high. It's like buying a unit in Civ 2. Or the entire concept of Helicopters and Paratroopers in Civ 2.

If you're going to put something in a game, make it work. If it isn't going to work, don't put it in. I guess I'll be mucking around the editor to see if I can find a way to edit this to usable levels.

On a related note, I d/l'd the patch, and will be giving a new game a go tonight.

Oh yeah, why a new game? Because I was playing my England game after editing the FP to be a city improvement, hoping that would allow me to build it faster (if I was willing to pay the price) and build it more than once. I had spent over a millenium with Berlin as my target, and built the FP there.

Where it had no effect on corruption. This icon refers to me, and is purely ironic.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

How didn't paratroopers in civ2 work?

Without them the A.I wouldn't EVER capture any city...the only thing in civ2 the A.I was good at was the nuke and drop.