Slower tech progress... good thing

Warmaker · November 3, 2001, 19:39

Compared to Civ II, III "feels" like it has a slower tech progress, which is fine by me. You can actually use those ancient/middle age units. Such disparity like having your panzers run down musketeers simply doesn't exist, even against AI. Any civ. doing alright should not be that far behind you technologically.

Because of this slower tech progression, older wonders actually have great uses before becoming obsolete. My example is the Great Lighthouse. It's equivalent in Civ II was not important to me but in Civ III it was my 2nd wonder I made (my people were bored). With an extra space of movement for naval units and being able to safely cross the treacherous seas it was a huuuuge strategic asset in ancient/middle ages. Everyone was hugging the shores with their ships. Not me, since it allowed my ships to explore and exapand my empire in untouched islands and continents. Those new colonies/towns were safe to expand with only worrying about the barbarians occasionally and not having to contend with rival empires doing "land grab."

Now back to my new game... I'm itching to bring out my newly researched Roman Legions against my unfortunate foes

Leonid · November 3, 2001, 20:13

Haha I just defeated rome after a long drawn out war that they initiated. I was being nice to them and gave them what they demanded then they attacked. After hundreds of years..they are dead. Mainly because they never has a source of Iron to create thir legions ..Mwahahaaaahaa..

They fought me with spearmen and archers. Still it was a pain takingthem over..god knows if they had legions I'd be in some serious trouble. But rome rAwKs baby, I'm playing as them next game. I playing the greeks this game..science bonus doesnt hurt.

CivPatriot · November 3, 2001, 21:35

agreed, in Civ2 I would go through the early units fast, so fast I really didn't feel like replacing them every time a new unit came along), this makes the game feel much more expansive than Civ2. Or even worse, bulding a great wonder, just to have it become obsolete a few turns later.(grrr)

a2b2c3 · November 3, 2001, 22:32

Yes, i also agree on this one. I didn't realize it for a while, i was stuck like everyone else, but then i started building frigates and ironclads, something i never did in civ 2. And now, well now it seems i actually get to use all the units in the game... well all that i have at least... i want my oil supply back! Dang Persians and Zulus!

Warmaker · November 4, 2001, 00:38

I was surprised to see lots of my opponents using spearmen (except for the Greeks with the reliable early game Hoplites) including myself for a long time until being replaced by pikemen.

I thought taking civ advancements took a while but building big time wonders... whew!

duxup · November 4, 2001, 07:33

It would appear that the tech progress is notably slower. I can now appreciate early units, wonders, improvements, and technologies so much more. (Look at that, you don't even have to add lots of new stuff to make a game better)

Colonization also seems more "realistic" now than in Civ2. In Civ2 I'd often find that I'd hit more modern times and there still were large land masses sitting empty. Now in Civ3 you (and them) have enough time in the early ages to actually explore colonize, and war a great deal.

cassembler · November 4, 2001, 17:45

Yeah I also noticed that I'm not building railroads in 300BC.

BIG CHEERS FOR A DEFINITELY IMPROVED GAMEPLAY!!!
(Despite the bugs)

HugoHillbilly · November 4, 2001, 22:47

Yeah, in Civ 2 I would never build any non-modern combat units, it was frustrated to build a force of legionarres just to have musketmen become avaiable 3 turns later.

One thing that I dont understand is why they included the chariot, in civ2 is was the most worthless unit in the game and it still is, with 1 extra tech you have horsemen with 2-1-2 and the chariot is only 1-1-2, so there is no point to build them.

They look really cool though, so maybe thats why they are still in the game.

Roulette · November 4, 2001, 23:23

I've been playing as the russians and am just now getting into the modern era. Throughout the game I felt like tech was going slower. I needed more of the older units than previous games. I will note that as my civ has grown larger (~25 cities, mostly size 15 or so) that I have begun to pull away from most of the AIs rapidly in the past few centuries. Now I'm attacking with marines and they're fighting back with pikeman and the first of their muskeetmen/teers/whatever. I will add as a caveat that I have been pushing tech development very hard (70+%) so that (combined with many universities and such) could be the root cause.

If so, I suggest that as a method of dealing with troublesome AI. quality beats quanity most of the time.

GNGSpam · November 5, 2001, 03:42

My first game of Civ3 out of the box, I was playing as the Greeks. I got Chariots and thought I was badass. Thinking back to my Civ2 experince, I was under the impression that they were 3-1-2 stats, and a level beyond Horseman.

Imagine my shock as the Romans completely slaughtered my Chariot armies I so painstakenly built (with a foreign source for horses no less) with Horsemen and Spearmen. I was furious that my mighty Chariots couldnt defeat meer Spearmen and were being outdone by lowely Horsemen!

Only later did I realize Horsemen were a tech level higher and Chariots had next to worthless stats of 1-1-2 =/

Dr. Nick · November 5, 2001, 05:57

Agreed, it had been a long time since I used bows and spears to attack an enemy.

Awender · November 5, 2001, 07:22

Hi,

I think that having a slower tech. race is also due to the fact that our time is divided into epocs. Until you do not finish almost all ancient techs, you can not go further.

This is my third game with CIV3 and I think that libraries not only expand your cultural influence, but significantly increases the pace techs. are discovered.

Nonetheless I miss the feeling of technological superiority. I hope that later in the game it will come.