Ok, I can pretty much win at will on regent vanilla civ3 with the greeks. I like the science and commercial traits. My usual strategy with them, is to turtle up early, build libraries and uni's like crazy, and get the great library. I do my best to stay out of early wars. I find the hoplites are ok at defending, but the offensive part of the war, is always so draining on my empire.
Usually, by the time that the industrial age rolls around, I'm pretty much way ahead, and its time for some war mongering for 1) eliminating my top competition, 2) resources, or 3) I just need more land. It seems its not a big deal by this point, as its just a matter of how long it will take for me to win, as opposed to "if" I'll win..
Having won on regent many times like this, I decided to move up to monarch. Plus, I went out and bought conquests. Playing my first conquests game, and first game ever on monarch, I've found that the ai can quickly outstrip me in the tech race (prolly due to the increased diff level), plus some other nasty surprises from c3c (ie, like less resources).
My question is, since it may just be easier as I've seen it stated on here, to just buy the techs, as opposed to researching them, doesn't that kind of negate the scientific trait all together? Aside from the extra tech at each age, is there really any other advantage to the sci trait at higher levels? It seems the prevailing wisdom here is to bag research at higher levels, and just buy the techs.
It might be better to quit with the greeks and try again with a militaristic/commercial civ. Because of the lack of resources in c3c, early wars are more likely, and can be justified easier than in vanilla civ3 , when everyone had a source of iron and horses and turtling/building was easier.
Usually, by the time that the industrial age rolls around, I'm pretty much way ahead, and its time for some war mongering for 1) eliminating my top competition, 2) resources, or 3) I just need more land. It seems its not a big deal by this point, as its just a matter of how long it will take for me to win, as opposed to "if" I'll win..
Having won on regent many times like this, I decided to move up to monarch. Plus, I went out and bought conquests. Playing my first conquests game, and first game ever on monarch, I've found that the ai can quickly outstrip me in the tech race (prolly due to the increased diff level), plus some other nasty surprises from c3c (ie, like less resources).
My question is, since it may just be easier as I've seen it stated on here, to just buy the techs, as opposed to researching them, doesn't that kind of negate the scientific trait all together? Aside from the extra tech at each age, is there really any other advantage to the sci trait at higher levels? It seems the prevailing wisdom here is to bag research at higher levels, and just buy the techs.
It might be better to quit with the greeks and try again with a militaristic/commercial civ. Because of the lack of resources in c3c, early wars are more likely, and can be justified easier than in vanilla civ3 , when everyone had a source of iron and horses and turtling/building was easier.
