Why are you playing civ 3 after all these years?

[Buttercup]

Except for the first, you can mod the others.

In all seriousness though, I was genuinely more than a little disgruntled when Civ 3 first arrived and I couldn't either settle on Mountains nor chop them down. "Why are they going backwards!" I exclaimed to no-one. Later on in years I tried Civ 4, and you couldn't even road/mine the mountains... er... I mean 'Peaks', lol. Though I think someone did a mod so you could road the mountains, er, I mean peaks.

 

[Takhisis]

You can add new worker units, you can fiddle with research caps and limits, you can add new artillery units. The Koreans' cartillery might be the best ranged unit in the game, btw.

 

[85397389]

The best strategy game ever made. The sense of time era when playing is even better than civ4, you can actually fight a lot of ancient->middle ages battles.
I personally don't like the non stacking Civ 5 and 6. Too much micro management.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

The best strategy game ever made. The sense of time era when playing is even better than civ4, you can actually fight a lot of ancient->middle ages battles.
I personally don't like the non stacking Civ 5 and 6. Too much micro management.

I would say that Civ 3 is the closest we've ever gotten to a fully realized natural state of a civilization game (as I see it anyway).

That natural state in my opinion is Civilization as a more complex game of chess with a nice coat of history paint over top to give it flavor.

The problem with later civ games is that they leaned too heavily into simulationist gameplay when the game's foundation can't really handle it well. It's like trying to build a 50 story apartment complex on top of a 2 story family home foundation. It just doesn't work.

In short, Firaxis looked at the relative popularity of Paradox games and thought "we could do that too!" The reality is, I wouldn't mind seeing a simulation style game from Firaxis, but it needs to be built up from the ground up and not shoehorning in those kinds of features into a game where it was never meant to be.

Mind you, there were some nice things introduced to later civs that I think were a good idea. Like the general trend toward making individual military units a more precious commodity so that you didn't just spam out a hundred units to throw at the enemy. I just wish the limits introduced in Civ 5 weren't hard limits.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I'm going to give my own two cents in this thread. I see this discussion is still fresh.

For one, B29's remarks are valid: Civ was always meant to be a tabletop chess with a coat of history on top of it, and the first three civs stick to this formula with no problems. This sort of simplicity, clear cut style, is an advantage.

But there is one thing that still makes me stick to the old, and "tried", in this regard. I even play Europa Universalis 2 because of this:

1 - For one, I'm a late 90's kid. So the nostalgia and sentimental factor peak at late 90's, early 00's games. That said this is not an absolute. But then there's factor 2:

2 - I'm a slow guy, and I'm also old fashioned. I can't keep pace with how just dazingly and stupidly fast modern software develops itself: for the same reason, I've ditched MS Office for LibreOffice, because it's free, and it has all the in-built functionalities that I need as a purely domestic user (no advertising, just saying plainly here
). No excessive complexity. But back when I used Office, I would keep old versions running long after M$ released something else, and I would also keep the old hardware. Even when I had the bucks to buy something new, hey, lemme tell you a secret: when I was a kid, I learned to use typewriters. And I kept using them until I was 21 to write my own texts.

I guess you could send me back on a time machine to the 50's and 60's, in some place like rural Idaho or whatever. I would fit in nicely. That's my kind of everyday pace.

The same thing happens with games: I like the clearcut, well tried, "old but good". Civ2, Civ3, with their tried and tested chess tabletop approach, feel like good old fashioned Civ.

I was never capable of keeping up with the pace of Civ development after 4. Sorry. I'm just a slow guy. I'm astonished to hear that in just 10 years, they made two new civs. Sorry that's just too fast. LOL.

There's also the fact I began to play, get hooked on, and prefer actively the Paradox games, esp. CK2 which is one of my all time favorites. I just they think they're different, but I still like them more, but I keep returning to Civ because of difference, nostalgia, etc...

 

[Takhisis]

I still like them more

*the screen depicts Takhisis leaping onto MPorciusCatoCivver's back while wildly swinging a knife before it cuts to static*

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

LOL LOL but yeah even Civ4 which I didn't like a lot doesn't compare favorably to a contemporary game like EU3 which I enjoyed. As for Civ3, it's good fine and dandy but CK2 is miles ahead of it. I know you'll kill me and I'm in a civ forum. But yeah, the truth is that for the hardcore strategy gamers there are better choices.

 

[Adrain]

LOL LOL but yeah even Civ4 which I didn't like a lot doesn't compare favorably to a contemporary game like EU3 which I enjoyed. As for Civ3, it's good fine and dandy but CK2 is miles ahead of it. I know you'll kill me and I'm in a civ forum. But yeah, the truth is that for the hardcore strategy gamers there are better choices.

It's not like we really care much about what particular reasons you have for preferring other games over (our favourite) Civ III. That would be to deny your freedom of choice, as well as to imply that such a thing is remotely absolute. I suspect the reasons I love Civ III would tumble over you like cold water - frankly irrelevant. Why should you care?

The fact is we each have our reasons & I'm very happy for you that yours lead you elsewhere. I would be very easy to convince that there are loads of very worthy & enjoyable games out there to enjoy. It would be a waste if there weren't people taking advantage of all that. Personally I'm still very happy with Civ III, to which I've recently returned with renewed enjoyment.

PS. By saying "even Civ4" you indicate that your requirements differ from mine. I shouldn't (so won't) speak for others, but Civ4 was the reason I never even tried any of the more recent offerings. It moved away from what I liked about CIII.

 

[BlackBetsy]

To me, Civ 3 is the ultimate expression of the game as a builder game before it got corrupted in later versions. Civ 1 was fantastic and I played it to death, but there were clearly things wrong with the game - one kill on a stack kills the whole stack, Pyramids being beyond OP, Democracy being beyond OP (no corruption!), the exploits for building wonders, etc. Civ 2 was pretty good with better graphics but terrain became less relevant as you could cut down hills and some of the exploits remained. Civ 3 has better graphics and removed some of the worst exploits and generated new trading options that I feel give a richness to the game.

Civ 4 was a step in the wrong directions. Graphics are not game play! Yes, a little pig on a map is cute, but doesn't mean the game play is better. Religion was interesting and I thought done decently well, but fundamentally (1) it started taking away the joy of micromanagement and optimization; and (2) the penalty on growth was just too much, IMO. It's an empire game, you shouldn't tell people not to grow! If you want people to play in a full built out map with fixed borders, let them play scenarios.

Civ 5 turned me off to the series. I just couldn't abide the one unit per tile heresy. It may have been called "Civilization" but it sure didn't feel like a Civ game. I didn't even try Civ 6.

There is such richness to Civ 3....every city is its own puzzle to solve, every victory condition a different game. Indeed, each part of the game can be its own game - the critical early turns, the first war, railroading to close out the game, etc. This round of play, I've learned SO much about marketplaces and optimizing for win conditions. Also, how to turn food into science and better production (mining where you irrigated before, irrigating where you mined before). There are even things that I lost about the game I need to recover - I have no idea how I did some of the fast domination games I did, I've forgotten those lessons.

 

[Adrain]

Just to be clear, though obviously I do love Civ III, it isn't even the reasons that are important. I have some similar and others different. It's that we all treasure different things so the games we like to play necessarily vary. I would feel just as foolish trying to tell anybody that Civ III is the best game ever as I would that it's history and overtaken by others.

In here I find kindred spirits - even though some of the reasons why may well differ. I can live with that

 

[Quintillus]

^Indeed. I agree with 85% of what BlackBetsy wrote, but for me micromanagement isn't a joy, and I usually skip most aspects of it (that's also the reason for the other 7.5%... I find IV to be a sidestep, now that I have a computer that can handle it well, unlike in 2005). But the Civ III strikes a good balance for a lot of people, even if the exact aspects that appeal to each person vary.

 

[vorlon_mi]

^Indeed. I agree with 85% of what BlackBetsy wrote, but for me micromanagement isn't a joy, and I usually skip most aspects of it (that's also the reason for the other 7.5%... I find IV to be a sidestep, now that I have a computer that can handle it well, unlike in 2005). But the Civ III strikes a good balance for a lot of people, even if the exact aspects that appeal to each person vary.

This!! "Strikes a good balance" Amen, amen.
I can attack, I can spawn cities, I can pre-build wonders, I have just enough strategic decisions to worry about.
Civ III strikes the right balance for me.

When I play Civ IV, even on lower difficulties, I must be preparing for the next war. Building lots of units, including the disposable catapults or trebs. Every aspect is amped up, from choosing/spreading a religion to farming GP to managing whip unhappiness to chasing runaway AI. Civ III allows me to consolidate my gains from each war and build my way to victory.

I've played some Civ V, but can't abide the global happiness mechanic. It forces me into a tall straightjacket.

I love BERT, because it updated the Civ V engine to have a path to *growing* one's way out of global unhealthiness. It has not one but FOUR different ways to build your way to victory. It strikes a good balance, given the 1UPT model.

I'm enjoying Civ VI, where -- similar to what happened between 3 and 4 -- they have amped everything up. More tech, more government options, more ways to deal with religion, more aggressive barbarians. My major complaint with VI is that the late game is hard / tedious to win. The only clear path is the science/space victory; diplomatic victory is hard to predict. Both religious and cultural victories require a LOT of effort to pull off. Conquering the last few AI capitals can be really laborious or requires waiting until modern weapons (like bombers) because of impassable mountains. It's a fun game, but it doesn't strike the right balance like Civ III does.

 

[Quintillus]

I've played some Civ V, but can't abide the global happiness mechanic. It forces me into a tall straightjacket.

I love BERT, because it updated the Civ V engine to have a path to *growing* one's way out of global unhealthiness. It has not one but FOUR different ways to build your way to victory. It strikes a good balance, given the 1UPT model.

I'm enjoying Civ VI, where -- similar to what happened between 3 and 4 -- they have amped everything up. More tech, more government options, more ways to deal with religion, more aggressive barbarians. My major complaint with VI is that the late game is hard / tedious to win. The only clear path is the science/space victory; diplomatic victory is hard to predict. Both religious and cultural victories require a LOT of effort to pull off. Conquering the last few AI capitals can be really laborious or requires waiting until modern weapons (like bombers) because of impassable mountains. It's a fun game, but it doesn't strike the right balance like Civ III does.

Yes, the global happiness was a huge negative for me with V as well, as someone who likes to build cities. VI sort-of has global happiness as well in that the luxuries are distributed to cities in a nearly-equal way (except when cities have enough local amenities to not need any luxuries), but the penalties are much less stiff, and there are more ways to deal with it (trade for luxuries/build entertainment districts/switch civics to ones that boost amenities), so I don't really mind the happiness mechanics there.

BERT = Beyond Earth: Rising Tide? It took me a while to figure out what that meant. That's interesting, I played a Beyond Earth (vanilla) free weekend and found it to be similar enough to V that I never bought the game. I remember playing until I was trying to conquer someone and the 1 UPT traffic jam made it boring, so an emphasis on peaceful options for victory in the expansion would be an improvement.

I largely agree on VI. It's kind of interesting, kind of different, I enjoy playing it with friends, but the mechanics don't work together quite as harmoniously as in III. I actually like the cultural victory in VI though. Great Works and Archaeology can make a huge difference, and I've found there are multiple ways of going about acquiring tourism. In my current game, don't tell my friend, but I've just been buying great works of art from the AI with gold. Now I need a few more art museums to house it all, but while the Ottomans are enjoying their newfound riches, I'm secretly plotting a cultural victory.

I doubt we'll ever have another Civ game that's as elegant in its balance of simplicity and complexity as III, as more features are typically a selling point. But I kind of like that I can have both a "more features" Civ game - first IV, now VI - and a balanced/harmonious Civ game in III, and play whichever fits my mood.

 

[Spoonwood]

^Indeed. I agree with 85% of what BlackBetsy wrote, but for me micromanagement isn't a joy, and I usually skip most aspects of it (that's also the reason for the other 7.5%... I find IV to be a sidestep, now that I have a computer that can handle it well, unlike in 2005). But the Civ III strikes a good balance for a lot of people, even if the exact aspects that appeal to each person vary.

I kind of like micromanaging the capital. I can plan out most worker moves ahead of time in my head, and then say run a 10 shield 5-7 archer + spearman + settler 10 turn factory (or later with swordsmen or horseman). I find that kind of neat and interesting. Micromanaging inner ring cities with just a little corruption isn't quite as good, but still, there's something to it. Micromanaging cities beyond the 12th city though usually end up feeling like a waste of time with the amount of corruption, and how "emphasize production" tends not to do anything anymore. Though managing food or specialists in corrupt areas can be alright sometimes in the industrial era, it's definitely not as fun as inner ring cities.

 

[Quintillus]

^For me, I think that's one of the areas that IV does better. Specifically, the fact that shields/food/research rolls over in IV. In III, a 5-shield city builds an Archer every 4 turns, and a 6-shield city builds an Archer every 4 turns, so you might as well tweak it so the city produces fewer shields but more food or commerce, if that's viable based on the tile yields. It's inefficient if you don't micromanage it.

Whereas in IV, the last 4 shields for that 6-turn city will be carried over, so the next Archer will finish in 3 turns, and the city will produce an archer on a 4/3/3 turn cadence (3.333 average). And there are the built-in emphasize food/production/commerce buttons for high-level micro (is that a contradiction?), and you can still manually assign if you need low-level micro, IIRC.

III also has the emphasize food/production/etc. through the governor settings, but it's hidden away well enough that I've very rarely used it in practice. Although if I ever start a new Civ III story, it's going to involve the governor and making do with the decisions made by said governor, for a change of pace and to see how much more difficult (easy?) it makes the game.

But indeed, III is still flexible enough that it works for someone who wants to play with no micro, or light micro, or heav(ier) micro.

 

[Spoonwood]

Whereas in IV, the last 4 shields for that 6-turn city will be carried over, so the next Archer will finish in 3 turns, and the city will produce an archer on a 4/3/3 turn cadence (3.333 average). And there are the built-in emphasize food/production/commerce buttons for high-level micro (is that a contradiction?), and you can still manually assign if you need low-level micro, IIRC.

I kind of like how civ III encourages the player to emphasize all aspects of food, commerce, and shields. I mean, since shields don't carried over to the next unit, there's motivation to use the tile layout for something else. I like that variety.

But, corruption makes it get uglier and uglier. Swapping tiles just to find that using a forest would be a waste due to corruption, I do not find enjoyable. And it's fine for a few cities, but again, it starts to feel overwhelming if the empire is large.

III also has the emphasize food/production/etc. through the governor settings, but it's hidden away well enough that I've very rarely used it in practice.

Emphasize production has a hidden benefit, unlike the others. Production gets calculated as soon as a city grows. So, let's say you have what looks like 8 shields for city to produce next turn (in your capital), and you have at least 3 food suprlus, the city about to grow from size 6 to 7 and an unused forest. You have 20 shields in the box also, and the city sits on a freshwater source. With emphasize production on, that forest will get used next turn, so your settler can pop out at the same time as the city grows to size 7, moving it back down to size 5. If you have only 2 surplus food, a forest won't get used, but it will try to pick the highest production two food tile. That sort of thing can end up useful not only for little boosts in commerce, but especially when making settlers or units early.

 

[Quintillus]

Emphasize production has a hidden benefit, unlike the others. Production gets calculated as soon as a city grows. So, let's say you have what looks like 8 shields for city to produce next turn (in your capital), and you have at least 3 food suprlus, the city about to grow from size 6 to 7 and an unused forest. You have 20 shields in the box also, and the city sits on a freshwater source. With emphasize production on, that forest will get used next turn, so your settler can pop out at the same time as the city grows to size 7, moving it back down to size 5. If you have only 2 surplus food, a forest won't get used, but it will try to pick the highest production two food tile. That sort of thing can end up useful not only for little boosts in commerce, but especially when making settlers or units early.

Interesting, I knew that you got the bonus production on the same turn a city grew, but I did not connect the dots with emphasize production meaning I'm more likely to get an extra shield with where that new worker is assigned. It makes sense, just never something that I had considered optimizing for.

 

[Spoonwood]

Here's an early game example from an "average" sort of start:

The worker on the bonus grassland will finish mining on this upcoming turn (forests only get used if there's at least three surplus food I think, or maybe it's four). So, that square will get used. Consequently, there will exist 7 shields on the next turn in the box, and that spearman will get finished in three turns.

For a "not so average" sort of example you might see the 1 turn worker pumps/2 turn golden age settler factories here. Also, below that link there's a picture with a more average sort of position with four bonus grasslands, and an iron in the capital radius for a 1 turn industrial age worker pump from size 5 to 6. I guess iron like that may come as unusual, but one hill or mountain isn't, and I think with more rails a size 6 to 7, one turn worker industrial worker pump would end up possible for an average start.

 

[Spoonwood]

Here's another picture, where a mined bonus grassland will get used for 10 shields, even though it reads 8:

and after:

Here's another one a few turns later for some extra commerce and the archer will finish at the same time also:

Then our city of Rome gets a tile set at size 6, which I didn't spot initially. I still haven't perfectly mastered thinking over capital puzzles I admit: