Why do we still like Civ 3?

[ThesaurusRex]

I was explaining to a friend the differences between Civ III and V. V has a much less unpredictable and far less annoying combat system, the AI are actually smart more than just cheating, diplomacy is expanded, leaders/Great People are expanded, there are neat religion and social policy mechanics, the World Congress is more than just a victory condition, basically there are so many ways to play the game, and the modding, while not as user-friendly as Civ 3's Scenario Editor, is more powerful and versatile.

Meanwhile in Civ 3, among its many annoyances, you're essentially pigeonholed into becoming a massively expanding (despite Feudalism supposedly helping small civs) tech broker with Stacks of Doom at your disposal, lest you be steamrolled by the other guys's Stacks of Doom. It's kind of like the Civ equivalent of a Bethesda stealth archer. Cultural & diplomatic victories are rarely fun, so it's mostly a war game even when you're doing a science victory.

Civilization III was pretty much the best Civ game when it came out (though plenty of people still preferred 2). But there are people born during the game's release who have kids now. Not counting the spinoffs, we have 4 games after that. And yet...here I am, still coming back to it. The hours I've spent are ungodly. It is one of my main 3 "must-have chicken-soup-for-the-soul childhood video games" I have kept on every computer for years. I've never been able to get into a Civ game quite as readily as 3. And I don't really know why. Is it just nostalgia? Simplicity? The way the graphics and UI are straightforward yet highly descriptive while also blending into the vibes? My advisor buddies?

What keeps you coming back to this game?

 

[Spoonwood]

I'll agree that you know civ V better than me. Thus, you understand the differences between civ V and civ III better than me also.

Meanwhile in Civ 3, among its many annoyances, you're essentially pigeonholed into becoming a massively expanding (despite Feudalism supposedly helping small civs) tech broker with Stacks of Doom at your disposal, lest you be steamrolled by the other guys's Stacks of Doom.

If you refuse AI demands, have the aggression set high enough, and don't know how to improve AI attitude when they become annoyed, sure. But, with aggression set at 'least aggressive', caving into AI demands in the majority of cases, and if you will improve AI attitude and trade, one wouldn't say that.

Cultural & diplomatic victories are rarely fun, so it's mostly a war game even when you're doing a science victory.

This strikes me as too opinionated and not all that precise. If 'cultural' means 100k type victories, perhaps everyone would agree that such seems to hold for most people who play civ III. But, for 20k victories that seems misleading. Before the HoF went down, the 20k tables had more tables filled up to 10 entries than any other victory type. The author also remembers viewing a good number of HoF spaceship and diplomatic games where there wasn't evidence of those human players having engaged in any war at all.

What keeps you coming back to this game?

That my gameplay could "stand the test of time" feeling. Also, prompted by thinking later civ games, but having only read about them, the importance of workers is great! That workers end up so useful and we can outsmart the AIs by using workers better than them leads to a consistent feeling that we can better manage things than them.

Additionally, the depth of what works out best to do given one's goals. For example, if you were to examine how to get a high score out of a game, one would think you'd find that requires quite a bit of depth of thought to understand and execute.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Civ3 has elements that resonate with my gameplay preferences. I don't play at high difficulties; I do like thinking that I am out-smarting the AI by using my workers, cities, and units better.

#1 reason: I love building lots of cities. The global happiness limits in Civ5 always felt too restrictive to me. "Get a free building in your first 4 cities" is much less fun for me. I've built some 100k culture empires, but I have lots more space victories.

While I miss the variety of religions in Civ4, Civ5, and Civ6, I like the simplicity of the luxury and resource sliders for managing my economy. Culture is simpler and more streamlined. I find the ways of growing science or culture to be somewhat opaque in Civ5.

Yes, I need to build stacks for my military. But I can move over mountains, which I can't in Civ4 and later games. More importantly, the AI can move its armies over all the terrain types, even using mountains and hills for defensive value. I enjoy the way that armies and military great leaders work in Civ3. Simpler, yes, but fun. I like the way that bombarding works in Civ3. I like the way that air combat works in Civ3; I find late game wars to be fun.

 

[Civinator]

There exists a similar thread since a longer time in this forum: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/why-are-you-playing-civ-3-after-all-these-years.676431/

In my case nothing had changed from the posts I had written in that thread. The only thing to add is, that the meanwhile released Civ 7 in its current state for me is far away from being a rival to Civ 3.

 

[Khantengri]

I was explaining to a friend the differences between Civ III and V. V has a much less unpredictable and far less annoying combat system, the AI are actually smart more than just cheating, diplomacy is expanded, leaders/Great People are expanded, there are neat religion and social policy mechanics, the World Congress is more than just a victory condition, basically there are so many ways to play the game, and the modding, while not as user-friendly as Civ 3's Scenario Editor, is more powerful and versatile.

Meanwhile in Civ 3, among its many annoyances, you're essentially pigeonholed into becoming a massively expanding (despite Feudalism supposedly helping small civs) tech broker with Stacks of Doom at your disposal, lest you be steamrolled by the other guys's Stacks of Doom. It's kind of like the Civ equivalent of a Bethesda stealth archer. Cultural & diplomatic victories are rarely fun, so it's mostly a war game even when you're doing a science victory.

Civilization III was pretty much the best Civ game when it came out (though plenty of people still preferred 2). But there are people born during the game's release who have kids now. Not counting the spinoffs, we have 4 games after that. And yet...here I am, still coming back to it. The hours I've spent are ungodly. It is one of my main 3 "must-have chicken-soup-for-the-soul childhood video games" I have kept on every computer for years. I've never been able to get into a Civ game quite as readily as 3. And I don't really know why. Is it just nostalgia? Simplicity? The way the graphics and UI are straightforward yet highly descriptive while also blending into the vibes? My advisor buddies?

What keeps you coming back to this game?

I just logged in to my 13 year old ancient account to say that I literally unbought Civ3 from steam, asked for a refund and then unregistered it from my account, and uninstalled and literally scrambled the HDD in it to show my white hot, raging hate. Steam had a sale.

On the contrary, if I had the power, I'd literally retcon that game out of existence. Compared to SMAC it is light years behind in many ways. The only interesting thing is the despotism-monarchy different hurry methods and unit payments in gold.

Other than that, the game's AI is absolutely dogcrap and very malicious like that SCP 1633. Imagine invading your territory deep and declaring war even as you extend a hand for free passage, always pushing up your nose and liberally surrounding your workers before declaring war, then calling this a good AI. There is literally no excuse for that kind of bullfeathers.

I started as Regent, Ottomans and settled in a nice narrow and rich isthmus, secured critical minerals and started expanding in a reasonable, well-organized method.

Cue Romans to the north. All their cities are 1 pop to discourage conquest, fine, sure. Yet they match me in technology, which was strange enough. Regular incursions around the end of ancient era combined with preternatural sense of weakest city aside, they kept pushing guarded settlers to my nose, and sighing, I decided to pump out a wall of spearmen around the borders wrecking my production and economy, but fine! I'll just make a few mining cities to offset that. OK?

Ok...

So they keep entering my borders while I finally go monarchic and do marketplaces to pay all that troops, hamstringing myself further. At least I settle a big island across the sea to get a bit more-oh wait corruption wrecks them.

Southern part of my Isthmus is getting settled by Germans so I finally snap and kill one settler starting a war. It goes...ok though there were a few instances where my swordsmen got one-on-one killed by...warriors. Not funny. At least that AI is reasonable so they make peace and I push them out of the Isthmus and into their part of big continent.

I go feudal but had to disband a few spearmen and pull back the rest for a re-equipping. Romans keep entering, so I sigh and give them literacy and sign a free passage treaty.

4 turns later they surround 3 cities and break treaty, kidnapping workers en masse.

Sigh, reload a few turns earlier, escort workers by pikemen. Come and try now.

Warriors kill veteran pikemen.

Warriors.

Then a horseman and 3 warriors overwhelm a walled city with 1 swordsmen and 1 spearmen inside.

Reload, set up a pikewall and bring a strike force of 2 archers 4 catapults and 2 MEDIEVAL INFANTRYMEN, all veteran.

All catapults fail to damage the enemy in Veii, nearest town.

Call Greeks behind Rome to the north, sign alliance vs Romans with tech bribe.

Greeks march against them...

...past them...

Into my borders, and JOIN ROMANS next turn.

Catapults deal zero damage, horsemen and spearmen wreck medieval infantries. This wasn't even funny. RNG is malware-infected or flat out anti-Human with serious bullfeathers. AI literally starts surrounding you from day 1 and invades and breaks any treaties like Civ2's rabid AI file where every enemy would be HELLBENT against you (which needs editing)

I like competitive tourney grade rivalry too but this is literally malicious BS, its developer needs to be punished.

SMAC's leaders have spirit, literal personalities with quirks(though it has problems in overseas combat aggression and helicopters were PLAIN BROKEN), this isn't a game to be entertained with.

CIV5...hmm...I reinstalled it and found it a bit hard, early age gold is near impossible to get...beyond earth suits me better.

Moderator Action: Changed some of the words you used without changing your meaning in order to make a more civil and family friendly post. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Civinator]

Other than that, the game's AI is absolutely dogcrap and very malicious like that SCP 1633.

A nice satiric post with the message that the Civ 3 AI overpowered the mental capacity of the new starter Khantengri and a funny way to express, that Civ 3 has at least one of the best AIs of the civ series. For civers who don´t know the fictive SCP 1633 game, here is an explanation and I think it shows how Khantengri´s post should be interpreted (as a joke):

Warriors kill veteran pikemen.
Warriors.

... and those warriors were defending fortyfied on mountains against the attacking brave pikemen which also additionally sometimes had to attack across rivers to reach the mountains. Such a scandal! ... and to add to your post: "If I should only have read the printed manual of Civ 3 before playing that monster of a game".

Khantengri, your satiric homage to Civ 3, written in the style of a jerk (that you of course are not), was very funny to read and in the end it shows your respect for the AI of Civ 3.

 

[Khantengri]

One thing I have to say, yes, AI is good, but not *that* kind of good. Of course, if it devotes itself perfectly to deal maximum psych damage to a human enemy, and plays like a tournament enemy, always, like ooze, dedicates himself to destroy you by finding your weakest spots. That is not an AI enemy you want to play with unless you are a masochist.

I am a simple man who wants to play with a human-like AI.

those warriors were defending fortyfied on mountains against the attacking brave pikemen which also additionally sometimes had to attack across rivers to reach the mountains.

Believe me, it was the OTHER WAY AROUND. Warrior killed a DEFENDING pikeman. On regent. I do not expect you to believe it since I erased every 1 and 0 of the game from my system. And when you have 3 veteran catapult companies pummeling a tiny town and does nothing, well, thats an appetite killer (10 years of catapult siege and city is just fine?). In Civ5 and Beyond Earth you can go full pacifist *if you want* and win. Here, its like a Red Alert 2 skirmish in a tourney map vs skilled men purely designed to kill your ass.

"If I should only have read the printed manual of Civ 3 before playing that monster of a game".

I have experience with a lot of similar games, and up to CIV6. I don't expect you to believe it, its simply that Civ3 AI is designed with malicious intent. You tried to sound nice in the earlier part of the reply and tried to end it with : "your satiric homage to Civ 3, written in the style of a jerk (that you of course are not),"

But then thinking I am a total "n00b" that literally knows nothing about the Civilization series do not ring in tune with the rest of your reply.

 

[Spoonwood]

In Civ5 and Beyond Earth you can go full pacifist *if you want* and win. Here, its like a Red Alert 2 skirmish in a tourney map vs skilled men purely designed to kill your ass.

One would suggest that those who still have the game installed to turn down the aggression level to Least Aggressive. Though, some others have suggested Most Aggressive while playing peacefully. Aggression level also affects how much your empire can get from selling technology. Your empire can get the best deals on Least Aggressive. Some, and one suspects many people also, believe that AI attitude also affects the probability that an AI will attack.

Some of us, including the present author, have managed to win games without having a single war.

But then thinking I am a total "n00b" that literally knows nothing about the Civilization series do not ring in tune with the rest of your reply.

The present author remembers someone saying before that civ III is the hardest of the series. While reading this younger person's comments, he feels inclined to believe that civ: AIs Will Expand ends up the most difficult, even though he hasn't played civ: Look 3D!, civ: Stacks of Doom Be Damned, or civ: What Funny Title for This One?, or civ: Switcheroo.

 

[RobS]

But I can move over mountains, which I can't in Civ4 and later games.

This.
It's nothing short of a game breaker for me.
And the developers only did that to make it easier to program the AI.

More importantly, the AI can move its armies over all the terrain types, even using mountains and hills for defensive value.

I didn't know that, but this makes it even worse.

Too bad, because as an old wargamer, I would prefer the hex maps of Civ5 and beyond. Oh well.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

I feel like Civ3 was where the franchise peaked. Certainly Civ3 absolutely could (and should) be improved, but it had none of the pretentiousness of later Civs where they tried being more than they really were.

In short, Civ3 was the "Civ"est of all Civs.

 

[Theov]

I feel like Civ3 was where the franchise peaked. Certainly Civ3 absolutely could (and should) be improved, but it had none of the pretentiousness of later Civs where they tried being more than they really were.

In short, Civ3 was the "Civ"est of all Civs.

it's remarkably close to Ci1 - indicating that it was how it was dreamt up to be.

4 could be seen as an expansion on the idea, but that's also when it started to go off the rails.

 

[Quintillus]

V has a much less unpredictable and far less annoying combat system, the AI are actually smart more than just cheating

I disagree with those, and that is part of why I still like Civ3.

Particularly, the Civ III AI can make you lose wars. Yes, we've all played long enough that it's pretty unlikely that will happen on Regent. But it can happen to us at Emperor (or Sid, maybe, for Spoonwood). It's all roses and sunshine, and all of a sudden Montezuma declares war, the Cavalry come charging in, and we rue the day we left our troops on the opposite border after fighting the Zulu. Worse, just before we launch a counter-attack, a bunch of Riflemen, or, worse, Infantry reinforce the city that the Aztecs took from us.

Civ V? Put an Archer in a city and it's basically impervious. One-unit-per-tile nerfed the AI's abilities far more than the human's. As a result, while there are some interesting elements in the peaceful side of the game, it's essentially a building game, with the option to conquer as well to speed up building.

III is less predictable, but to me that's a good thing. It forces me to consider contingencies. Do I build a few extra pikes or focus all-out on research? Sure, that pike on a hill with walls is probably going to be okay, but can I afford to risk losing that city if he's not? Should I launch an invasion of my neighbor now to secure saltpeter, or build a few more Medieval Infantry first? If I wait and build more, my neighbor might upgrade a few of those pikes to Musketmen, and then it's that much harder to take the city. But if I don't, I might lose the battle!

I can certainly see how moments may be annoying, but on the whole, the uncertainty is part of the charm for me. Civ IV can deliver on that as well; V and VI cannot so much. And VII? If I really wanted to switch civilizations, I'd be playing Humankind.

I don't play III all that often anymore, but it still stands up to the test of time when I do.