Why is this game so strategically shallow?

[Fifty]

Is there any strategy in this game whatsoever besides what can be learned in about an hour, plus the willingness to do lots of tedious micro?

Moderator Action: Troll thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[katipunero]

Funny. I just finished an emperor game without the use of any sort of strategy just some preset actions in my head but still coasted to victory around early 19th century. I guess I've read myself to ruin by looking up on one too many strat articles in the site and learning, along the way, too many exploits and whatnot.

 

[splunge the 2nd]

Is there any strategy in chess besides what can be learned in an hour?

 

[Aegis]

This game is more about logistics, planning and city/worker management, but there is plenty of strategy involved as well. If you don't enjoy the game, then... don't play it?

'course, then you wouldn't have anything to troll about.

Is there any strategy in chess besides what can be learned in an hour?

This.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Try one of the many scenarios. I find that playing a scenario eliminates a lot of the gamey tricks and tips you pickup playing the epic game.

DL Age of Imperialism, WW2-Global, The Cold War. All of these involve some strategy in the sense that I think you mean, plus all of the production management and logistics mentioned above.

 

[Aegis]

Or someone could play against another person, instead of the predictable AI.

 

[templar_x]

Is there any strategy in this game whatsoever besides what can be learned in about an hour, plus the willingness to do lots of tedious micro?

did it really take you 10.000+ posts until THIS ONE?

templar_x

 

[TheOverseer714]

Any comment I might make would get me warned, so I'll just note that the tone of the OP suggests a desire to incite an argument. I decline to argue. Nice try...

 

[timerover51]

Any comment I might make would get me warned, so I'll just note that the tone of the OP suggests a desire to incite an argument. I decline to argue. Nice try...

That makes two of us, Overseer.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

As a veteran of CFC I easily saw through the R.U.S.E. but decided to play anyway because although I don't like debating that much I do like to debate when it comes to my games.

 

[Spoonwood]

If you meant you question as sincere Mr. Fifty, I would definitely say yes. Check the HoF discussion threads and the XOTM discussion threads, as well as the War Academy around here. There's plenty of strategy involved.

For those think his question insincere, I'll remark that Mr. Fifty has 0 medals in an XOTM competition, as well as 0 HoF top finishes. No doubt Mr. Fifty hasn't played Sid level either, nor would I expect he's won a set of games which has as its members a space game, a diplomatic game, a 100k game, a 20k game, a histographic game, a conquest game, and a domination game. Yet he dubs the game "strategically shallow."

 

[Fifty]

Funny. I just finished an emperor game without the use of any sort of strategy just some preset actions in my head but still coasted to victory around early 19th century. I guess I've read myself to ruin by looking up on one too many strat articles in the site and learning, along the way, too many exploits and whatnot.

Indeed. Once you learn the basic mechanics of the game, the only "strategy" is "how much boring micro can I tolerate".

Is there any strategy in chess besides what can be learned in an hour?

Absolutely.

This game is more about logistics, planning and city/worker management, but there is plenty of strategy involved as well. If you don't enjoy the game, then... don't play it?

The tedious micro to strategy ratio in civ 3 is roughly equivalent to the strategy to luck ratio in solitaire.

course, then you wouldn't have anything to troll about.

Accusing people of trolling is in fact trolling by forum precedent, so please stop trolling.

Try one of the many scenarios. I find that playing a scenario eliminates a lot of the gamey tricks and tips you pickup playing the epic game.

I refuse to exploit users who have made a bad game good without getting paid by the company. Its very much like sweatshop labor.

Or someone could play against another person, instead of the predictable AI.

Its too much of a hassle to play against other humans.

did it really take you 10.000+ posts until THIS ONE?

Non-sequitur, red herring, and strawman!

Any comment I might make would get me warned, so I'll just note that the tone of the OP suggests a desire to incite an argument. I decline to argue. Nice try...

I'm not inciting an argument, merely pointing out a fact, namely that civ 3 is extremely strategically shallow. I'm curious how people can enjoy a game that is so strategically shallow, and furthermore I'm curious as to how people can honestly consider this a strategy game.

That makes two of us, Overseer.

As a veteran of CFC I easily saw through the R.U.S.E. but decided to play anyway because although I don't like debating that much I do like to debate when it comes to my games.

It is neither a R.U.S.E nor a ruse.

If you meant you question as sincere Mr. Fifty, I would definitely say yes. Check the HoF discussion threads and the XOTM discussion threads, as well as the War Academy around here. There's plenty of strategy involved.

I've read a lot of that stuff, and it strikes me that it confirms rather than refutes my hypothesis about the strategic shallowness of this game.

For those think his question insincere, I'll remark that Mr. Fifty has 0 medals in an XOTM competition, as well as 0 HoF top finishes. No doubt Mr. Fifty hasn't played Sid level either, nor would I expect he's won a set of games which has as its members a space game, a diplomatic game, a 100k game, a 20k game, a histographic game, a conquest game, and a domination game. Yet he dubs the game "strategically shallow."

The only reason I don't have multiple awards is because I have a low tolerance for tedious micro. As founder of the largest CFC-related chatroom, I have learned from top players that, indeed, much of the game at a high level is tedious micro.

Of course, the micro is somewhat obscured by the reports of the games. It is boring to report tedious micro, so the players focus on the thin strategic aspects of their game in reports, thus fooling foolish people like yourself into misassigning the primary locus of their success. A thorough examination of the relevant data would lead one to a conclusion that is opposite your own, however.

 

[Spoonwood]

To make things clear from the outset, the pharse "tedious micro" does not have a clearly defined meaning. At best, it has a fuzzy meaning (like words very, big, fast, etc.), as do practically all words and phrases relating to human interest levels. The term 'strategy' also has this happy characteristic, though perhaps to a less extent. If one doesn't acknowledge this, then to make arguments like those of Mr. Fifty rationally then one can and properly should clearly and crisply define them without an appeal to vague or fuzzy terms in such definitions.

I've read a lot of that stuff, and it strikes me that it confirms rather than refutes my hypothesis about the strategic shallowness of this game.

Yea, and so what? You speak as you have some authority about the game, but as far as I know you've NEVER posted a game on here. Consequently, that such may strike YOU in one way either merely expressly your personal opinion as opinion, or taken as an attempted argument makes an appeal to questionable authority.

The only reason I don't have multiple awards is because I have a low tolerance for tedious micro.

And that flat-out doesn't work with respect to the HoF. One can win on higher levels without any of whatever you mean by your cryptic phrase "tedious micro". You can refer to the following chart for the number of games which have spots CURRENTLY filled. Note EACH of these tables has 10 spots open:

Tiny maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 10 8
20k 5 7
100k 2 4
Diplo 4 3
Domination 10 8
Space 3 2
Histo 3 3

Small maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 2 2
20k 4 4
100k 1 2
Diplo 2 3
Domination 3 4
Space 1 7
Histo 0 1

Standard maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 2 4
20k 3 7
100k 0 1
Diplo 2 6
Domination 3 3
Space 2 4
Histo 0 4

Large maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 0 2
20k 6 5
100k 0 0
Diplo 2 7
Domination 1 5
Space 1 2
Histo 0 1

Huge maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 1 1
20k 1 2
100k 0 1
Diplo 3 2
Domination 0 2
Space 0 3
Histo 4 5

Again, it's generally agreed upon that one CAN win higher levels without whatever you may mean by "tedious micro". So, you can't use that as an excuse for beating these levels and having zero... I repeat ZERO... spots in ANY of these tables.

As founder of the largest CFC-related chatroom, I have learned from top players that, indeed, much of the game at a high level is tedious micro.

That you can found some popular chatroom, has no bearing on the game at a high level. So there's a non sequitur. Second, who do you mean specifically by these "top players"? Again, you've made another appeal to a questionable authority here by not citing anyone in any sort of context. Lastly, you would need some sort of yardstick to judge what one would rationally mean by "top player" for such a phrase to have sufficient meaning, and you've provided none whatsoever.

A thorough examination of the relevant data would lead one to a conclusion that is opposite your own, however.

Let's see here, I've played a bunch of games for the HoF, and wrote up notes up on them. You haven't played any, nor wrote up any notes on them. So, I've examined the relevant data more than you have. And I have the opinion that playing the game involves more strategy than just "tedious micro". So, either you have some extreme notion of "thorough examination of the relevant data" which involves MUCH, MUCH MORE than playing 40 games for the HoF as well as writing up probably over 50 pages of reports on these games, or a thorough examination of the relevant data DOES NOT (necessarily) lead one to a conclusion the opposite of my own.

Go ahead call me names as you already have before. It will still stand that I have some top spots and some reports and some strategy articles on this game, while you have (so far as I can tell) zero. And that's a fact.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I refuse to exploit users who have made a bad game good without getting paid by the company. Its very much like sweatshop labor.

That phrase confirms my suspicion that Fifty is just being sarcastic (that's why we love him for it ). Mod-makers are like sweatshop labourers? Really?

For those who don't know, Fifty is a quite prominent and a very important persona in the Off-Topic forum.

 

[Fifty]

To make things clear from the outset, the pharse "tedious micro" does not have a clearly defined meaning. At best, it has a fuzzy meaning (like words very, big, fast, etc.), as do practically all words and phrases relating to human interest levels. The term 'strategy' also has this happy characteristic, though perhaps to a less extent. If one doesn't acknowledge this, then to make arguments like those of Mr. Fifty rationally then one can and properly should clearly and crisply define them without an appeal to vague or fuzzy terms in such definitions.

Your view of the semantic requirements of successful dialogue is untenable in the extreme!

You obviously know nothing about semantics, unlike me.

Yea, and so what? You speak as you have some authority about the game, but as far as I know you've NEVER posted a game on here. Consequently, that such may strike YOU in one way either merely expressly your personal opinion as opinion, or taken as an attempted argument makes an appeal to questionable authority.

I have extreme authority of the game because I have done rigorous analysis of it and determined that it is strategically shallow. I don't think anyone has more authority over the game except the design team, to be honest, and they of course cannot be trusted due to conflicts of interest.

And that flat-out doesn't work with respect to the HoF. One can win on higher levels without any of whatever you mean by your cryptic phrase "tedious micro". You can refer to the following chart for the number of games which have spots CURRENTLY filled. Note EACH of these tables has 10 spots open:

Tiny maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 10 8
20k 5 7
100k 2 4
Diplo 4 3
Domination 10 8
Space 3 2
Histo 3 3

Small maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 2 2
20k 4 4
100k 1 2
Diplo 2 3
Domination 3 4
Space 1 7
Histo 0 1

Standard maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 2 4
20k 3 7
100k 0 1
Diplo 2 6
Domination 3 3
Space 2 4
Histo 0 4

Large maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 0 2
20k 6 5
100k 0 0
Diplo 2 7
Domination 1 5
Space 1 2
Histo 0 1

Huge maps:

Sid Deity

Conquest 1 1
20k 1 2
100k 0 1
Diplo 3 2
Domination 0 2
Space 0 3
Histo 4 5

Again, it's generally agreed upon that one CAN win higher levels without whatever you may mean by "tedious micro". So, you can't use that as an excuse for beating these levels and having zero... I repeat ZERO... spots in ANY of these tables.

Each of these involves massive amounts of tedious micro. Have you even done a serious analysis of each individual game?

That you can found some popular chatroom, has no bearing on the game at a high level.

Actually it does. It has extreme bearing.

Second, who do you mean specifically by these "top players"?

Players who have been the vanguard of the community for years before you were here.

Again, you've made another appeal to a questionable authority here by not citing anyone in any sort of context. Lastly, you would need some sort of yardstick to judge what one would rationally mean by "top player" for such a phrase to have sufficient meaning, and you've provided none whatsoever.

Actually, again your ridiculous view of semantics is clouding your already cloudy judgment. I refuse to go off into a giant digression into natural language semantics so you'll just have to wallow in your own ignorance.

Let's see here, I've played a bunch of games for the HoF, and wrote up notes up on them. You haven't played any, nor wrote up any notes on them. So, I've examined the relevant data more than you have. And I have the opinion that playing the game involves more strategy than just "tedious micro". So, either you have some extreme notion of "thorough examination of the relevant data" which involves MUCH, MUCH MORE than playing 40 games for the HoF as well as writing up probably over 50 pages of reports on these games, or a thorough examination of the relevant data DOES NOT (necessarily) lead one to a conclusion the opposite of my own.

The fact that you are a low- to mid-level HoF player is illustrative. It means that you are unable to distinguish tedious micro from genuine strategy.

 

[holy king]

civ4 rules! civ3 is inferior in every way!

play civ4, fifty, if civ3 is too boring for you.

 

[Aegis]

Is there any strategy in chess besides what can be learned in an hour?

Absolutely.

The same is true of CivIII.

The tedious micro to strategy ratio in civ 3 is roughly equivalent to the strategy to luck ratio in solitaire.

What a ridiculous analogy. I'd say it's more equivalent to this topic's plausability to seriousness ratio.

Accusing people of trolling is in fact trolling by forum precedent, so please stop trolling.

Accusing me of trolling because I accuse you of trolling is in fact trolling by forum precedent, so please stop trolling.

I refuse to exploit users who have made a bad game good without getting paid by the company. Its very much like sweatshop labor.

There are Scenarios created by the developers of CivIII.

Its too much of a hassle to play against other humans.

Your finding it a hassle to create a PVP game has nothing to do with the amount of strategy involved in said game.

Let's review:

You have no adequate answer to the chess analogy.
You fail to rebuttal the strategy involved with Scenarios.
You fail to rebuttal the strategy involved with PVP.

You've lost the debate. It's time to end your theatrical charades. These forums are a nice vacation from the mouth-breathing troll-fests of other gaming forums. Your attempt to drudge the Civ Fanatics forums down into those depths for your own personal amusement is not appreciated.

For those who don't know, Fifty is a quite prominent and a very important persona in the Off-Topic forum.

lol, no. Prominent he may be, but "very important persona" he is not.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

I refuse to exploit users who have made a bad game good without getting paid by the company. Its very much like sweatshop labor.

No! You're missing the point. These scenarios were created by ordinary players who have a sincere love for this game. Theirs is a labor of love, not sweatshop labor. You truly are missing out on an excellent game experience if you choose to ignore some of the outstanding mods and scenarios out there.

Now to be fair I can understand your disappointment with the main game. Take for example Empire: Total War. What a waste of $50 that game is. I don't care what the community has done to make that a good game with their mods, the main game is seriously broken. C3C on the other hand was not rushed to market. In addition Firaxis worked hard on issuing patches. Anyway my 2 cents.

 

[holy king]

how greatful of firaxis to release a game that isnt utterly broken.

 

[Fifty]

The same is true of CivIII.

Sorry but it isn't. If you read this thread you would realize that Civ3 is full of tedious micro, and has little strategic depth.

What a ridiculous analogy. I'd say it's more equivalent to this topic's plausability to seriousness ratio.

First of all, your comeback analogy is stupid and doesn't support your point (I suggest doing some research into how analogies work).

Second, my analogy is in fact apt, because in solitaire the game is mostly luck and very little skill, and in civ3 the game is mostly tedious micro and very little strategic depth. I can't believe you can't understand this very simple point.

Accusing me of trolling because I accuse you of trolling is in fact trolling by forum precedent, so please stop trolling.

No it isn't. Your understanding of forum precedent is as superficial as your understanding of civ and your understanding of analogies.

There are Scenarios created by the developers of CivIII.

Completely irrelevant.

Your finding it a hassle to create a PVP game has nothing to do with the amount of strategy involved in said game.

But it does underscore the point that dismissing the entire single player part of the game in an attempt to excuse its strategic shallowness is not a valid option for the defender of this strategically shallow game called civ3.

Let's review:

You have no adequate answer to the chess analogy.
You fail to rebuttal the strategy involved with Scenarios.
You fail to rebuttal the strategy involved with PVP.

No chess analogy was really even put forth. It was merely asserted without argument so no answer is required. It is blazingly obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of chess that strategy extends far beyond 1hr of play. In civ, however, "strategy" merely means "learn game mechanics", and the rest is just tedious micro (what veneer of strategy there is amounts to incredibly simple cost-benefit analysis).

You've lost the debate.

You are not the arbiter of debate losing or winning. You are simply irrationally defending something you enjoy because you cannot cope with the realization that this game is in fact strategically shallow, because it hurts your feelings, because if you think of it as a strategy game then it sounds more intellectual. The fact is that this game is extremely strategically superficial and that is a fact that you will have to face, because it is a fact.

It's time to end your theatrical charades.

Your charades are the ones that are theatrical. My charades don't even exist because they are not charades but in fact merely constitute the careful application of reason to the game that is civ3.

These forums are a nice vacation from the mouth-breathing troll-fests of other gaming forums. Your attempt to drudge the Civ Fanatics forums down into those depths for your own personal amusement is not appreciated.

Your attempt to stifle any and all criticism of your beloved drug-game is nothing but puerile, self-serving, pseudo-intellectual drivel.

A threat that you will somehow "nuke" me if I do not stop? How mature.

Prominent he may be, but "very important persona" he is not.

Actually if you knew anything you'd know that I'm extremely important and thus so is my persona, mutatis mutandis.

No! You're missing the point. These scenarios were created by ordinary players who have a sincere love for this game. Theirs is a labor of love, not sweatshop labor. You truly are missing out on an excellent game experience if you choose to ignore some of the outstanding mods and scenarios out there.

"labor of love" How incredibly Orwellian. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! WAR IS PEACE!!!

Now to be fair I can understand your disappointment with the main game. Take for example Empire: Total War. What a waste of $50 that game is. I don't care what the community has done to make that a good game with their mods, the main game is seriously broken. C3C on the other hand was not rushed to market. In addition Firaxis worked hard on issuing patches. Anyway my 2 cents.

I appreciate your two cents but you need not be an apologist for this so-called strategy game (in fact its real genre is "tedious micro" not "strategy")