Severe Civ3 problems rant

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Wins on Diety level are certainly possible.

Of course wins on Deity are possible. Sorry for the hyperbole. Indeed, I would contend that most Deity games are winnable with the city packing exploit. Or are winnable with a good starting position and moderate city packing. I usually play Emperor so I can let my cities "breathe," and so I can play the map not the grid.

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by SirPleb


On the original note in this thread there's one other thing I want to comment on, "The Diplomatic model sucks!" I have large concerns about parts of the game and their fun factor but this is definitely not one of them! I find that the diplomatic model, once you get used to it, is one of the best parts of the game. It is an area which can be subtle and very powerful. Careful use of deals (MPPs, alliances, ROPs, and resource trading) has become a large part of my play style and is one of the least "formula" parts of the game I think. What will work best in this area changes from game to game, making it quite interesting.

Gotta agree with this - I'm just discovering how subtle and useful it is....actually managed to band together with 3 weaker civs to gang up on the 3 powerful, aggressive ones. This all in the industrial era when I was already ahead in score, and 4 other civs already eliminated (two by me). So there IS a way to avoid having the AI's gang up on you (at least at Monarch level), but you have to be generous, keep track of who's fighting who, and make sure the little guys have the tech and strategic resources necessary to fight back!

Also I had to station a lot of troops in remote places to help the allies with battle - it felt very much like an Axis vs. Allies scenario, except instead of US coming to rescue it was Babylon.

@ civ2rules - being a civ2 vet means you have to unlearn a LOT of things. I learned this quick when I watched my girlfriend (who was new to the whole civ thing) kick butt while I was floundering in our first few games. Some of your complaints echo things constantly under discussion here, so try to read up a bit in older threads - you will see how EVERYONE has had to learn a thing or two, and these forums are a GREAT HELP if you take the time to sift through the complaints.

And don't be scared off by the replies to your original post! Folks here are quite helpful, really.

 

[simwiz2]

"And for it being relly slow then you computer is all messed up becuse I have a Celron 300 mhz with 192 MB and it runs as fast if not faster then CIV2"

Well i have a celeron 366 mHz with only 64 MB and it runs ok on standard maps. I think most of the slowness people experience is huge maps, which may or may not be fixable.

"you just got to get a better computer is all and stop cring"

Well many of the problems are on 2.2 gHz computers so i dont think they can really get a better computer, and just because someone is disappointed with an aspect of a game does not mean they are cring.

"about you not being able to win on the hardest level right away that tells me all you just want a push over of a game you pansey."

personally i dont have any problems with the difficulty, but even chieftain can be difficult for new players ive heard. also one problem with civ3 is that its random results are frustrating, possibly stringy, and its really annoying when the AI seems to be lucky for 50 or so turns, and then when you get your "50 lucky turns" it makes your victories feel too easy, cheapened. So i think the original poster was more worried about the frustrating-hard rather than the comptetetive-AI hard.