Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by Tucker798, Jun 30, 2008.
Not many people would rate Russia as a top Civ, but Judging from your Name and Avatar, Fair Enough
I love Russia, and when all I owned was vanilla, that was pretty much the only civ I would play as. But I think that people don't like Russia because the expansionist trait is rather weak at higher levels, (pretty much anything over Regent in my personal opinion) but when you play nothing above Regent, it has its advantages
W/o reading the thread. It depends on the map and level.
Take your time but make sure to play as every civ. All of them have something of value when properly exploited by a human player. While Agri and Ind are the most powerful overall. Don't discount Seafaring on an island map or Exp on a pang, they can be sick. They are not bad on Conts either.
The last one standing.
Simply don't underrate commercial. Newbies might do so, while experienced players much less so. And remember that scientific *can* have economic benefits also. Militaristic can even work out interestingly for a 20k since it can give you a nicely timed golden age.
I have now played 19 of the 31 civs (by alphabet) and I can only remember a couple of them where I hated playing the Civ. I'm not even sure which they were at this point.
My problem is that I don't like to start wars (I like to win them but not start them) so I can get bogged down in a game that could have been over a thousand years ago. That most often causes me to get bored with a game. - my Greek game was one of those.
The Greeks are not on my list of "just gotta play them again" Civs
I like all the civs, but obviously I like Agri and I like Commercial Civs . Maybe that makes me an Iroquoi Lover
As a player trying to break out of Monarch, I'm partial to the Iroquois and the Celts. Both are Agricultural, so they expand fast... Both have 2 move early game UUs. I'd say out of the two I prefer the Iroquois, as they have Alphabet to start.
Why does that matter for playability? The game will just cycle through the last again making them "New Cit" or "City 2" or, heaven forbid "New City 2".
oh it doesn't.... its just a factor into what I think the best Civ is, because I personally don't like the cities to be named "New City" and definately not like "City 2"
idk WHAT I would do if I got to "New City 2"
its just a little CDO* I have, all cities must be uniquely named (I do make exceptions for cities like "New York" etc...)
*-whats a CDO? A CDO is like an OCD.... but all the letters are in alphabetical order (the way they should be)
good one! I know some people who would like that.
I believe its a Stephen Colbert quote, if I'm not mistaken
Taras, I like your ideas with respect to cities. I dislike non-unique names as well, and keep going through atlases, both current and historical, to find more. Right now, I am working on more for the Byzantines, Dutch, and Greeks. Problem with the Byzantines and Greeks is the overlap between the two.
Isn't there a way to edit city lists so that you can make the list longer? I remember using names of Normandy towns in an SG to get a "uniqueness" and flavor to the game. In the rare instances I play as America, I have no trouble coming up with unique city names, but for some tribes it can be very difficult. Epecially the other meso american tribes...
You can edit all of the city lists in conquests.biq, so as long as you have the editor you can put in whatever cities you like.
yeah, you can edit the city lists, but if you create your own scenario, it doesn't save your scores in the high scores
and last time I messed with the default conquest.biq, everything went all screwy, and I couldn't get any high scores either
and I haven't EVER edited my high scores, and I don't know if I really want to
PS-for unique city names for Meso-American civs, a good idea is to just make them up (its what I do )
The great Mayan town of Chicken Pizza. The Aztec city Ten-old-chitlins. The Iroquois town of Caterwaulus.
I used to name all of my cities in alphabetical order and it was very helpful to know what got built when.
I do like some of the names that I have seen in some SG's. It's one of the things I love about Civ... a sense of humour is an asset.
No love for the Hittites? I feel more confident playing them for some reason, perhaps because of the initial scout meaning I can plough more early production into units. While it's not really possible to get a huge lead on your opponents as it is in Civ IV, I still am making more progress as an all-rounder than I was even with Rome. Rome kind of stalled because I never got iron, but the Hittites do well with their chariot if you have horses, which seem to be easier to get in my games.
Then again I am going through a phase of playing mostly ancient Fertile Crescent civs and not exploring Mesoamericans or Europeans or East Asians. Perhaps I shouldn't comment until I've played the full gamut, but the Expansionist/Commercial traits are far and away the best of the FCs and so maybe I should now tackle other global cultures for my sins.
Are you reffering to Civ 3 by any chance? Because there's no Iroquois in Civ4.
Separate names with a comma.