Civ 2 veterans....

[MarshalN]

I'm just wondering how many people here are Civ2 veterans?

I'm one of those who just got Civ3 and got smashed in King (Monarch) even though I only play on deity in Civ2 and consistently beat the computer. It's quite a different game now, and I still have to get used to it, sigh....

I think what I'm not taking enough care of is locating/taking the vital resources like luxuries and strategic resources. Of course, sometimes that's just luck, but at the same time, I think when I see something I want, I need to go right there and make a city, however far. It kinda goes against my Civ2 ways of expanding organically. Since you don't get techs stolen if a city is lost, there's less risk of having a small outpost out in the middle of nowhere now.

Another thing is, I almost never traded techs with the AI in Civ2 unless it's a good trade (i.e. i'm giving something not that important away for something that I want). Now I think I have to trade constantly, because the new science cost system makes it very difficult for one Civ to dominate science without requiring trade.

These are just some preliminary observations by a guy who played years of Civ2.... I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks.

[absimiliard]

I'm a vet of the whole Sid Meier 4X series of games.

I much prefer Civ III to Civ II.

I find the emphasis on diplomacy is good. The presence of strategic resources is important now, so are the luxuries for that matter. There's a lot else here that pleases me as well.

The only weak point for me is in the espionage functions. They're all inferior to Civ II in my opinion. I like the theory of "no-spies" and doing it all from a large screen, but the implementation is weak. Everything except for investigating a single city is just way to expensive to ever be worth doing.

[vmxa1]

From my reading of the post here, most have played Civ2 and still are. I had a tough time in my first two games until I dumped all my civ2 thoughts. I was not much on diplomacy in civ2, but now it is a big part especially trading. Expanding was important in civ2, but iit s do or die to do it fast now. No more one unit defenders and upgrade them to get by. I found that more wars and nearly non stop troops building is required to keep the AI in check, especially before they start making MPP and RoP's with everyone. You can not get out in front with tech so easy now, unless you reduce their numbers.

[MarshalN]

Yeah I know, learned the hard way with my first few games. I've always been more or less a pacifist for the first few thousand years, generally disliking war early on because it slows me down for building wonders and the like. Now if I don't build military units, I get bullied and eventaully screwed over.

There's no way one player can get all the techs fast enough like it used to. I am still adapting to that aspect of the game by trading more. I am still reluctant to give away key techs for anything, such as monarchy or other such things.

I think one problem with the emphasis on resources is that sometimes it's pure luck whether you land in a place with lots of or no luxuries, etc. You're in a great disadvantage if you get boxed in by geography and the guy next to you have lots of luxuries. Of course, it can go both ways, but it makes things a bit unreasonably tough in certain games.

[Steve Clark]

My god, can this be my old friend MarshalN?!?! If so, remember your warning to me? You were there at the beginning when I first started this thing and look what has been wrought! This has been about the only thing I have done since the old days, but you knew that would be the case. If you want to know what some of us hardcore Civ2 players think, please go to Civ2-MP and check out the "first to falter" thread.

[vmxa1]

So true, you can no longer get all of the wonders and must accept that fact. Pacifist is defeat now, the AI will treat you like a dog.

[MarshalN]

My oh my, it's a small world after all

Yes, this is the same MarshalN you knew from your RRT2 days. I told you Civ2 is addicting, didn't I?

I'll certainly check out that thread. Tried another game just now, playing as French again. Killed the Germans with some hard work, but the English declared on me (because i didn't want to give away Republic) and I couldn't fight them off quickly enough before war weariness set in. Sigh. Gotta restart and maybe just trade republic to them for something. Since I'll have chivalry in a few turns and they're nowhere near.... I'll kick them then.

This is a serious pain though. I hate warring, it's so inefficient and wastes my precious production in a totally unproductive way.

[War4ever]

well i just got my first win on emperor level and it was a simple rush the ai via vet archers and swordsmen..... the latter coming just when i needed it.

Religious civs are good to play as are militaristic for the unit upgrades..... and possible leaders though in this game i just got one....

i was sandwhiched between eveyrone and although there were two powerfull civs left on either upper flank of myself, they couldn't agree to fight a war against me and i gradually wore them down.

it ended with a calvalry rush that they just couldnt' withstand...

i only built one wonder ten cities and razed all but the capitals of my opponents...

The enjoy building the five star ring of cities with the cap in the middle.....

key is to do the same but on a smaller scale and add another four cities to fill the gaps from the diagonally first four....

fast growth , and if you find iron, you can crush two civs in no time..... i had so many units from rushbuilding everything ...

once the roads were set i just put the workers in the city and rushed new vet units....

only wonder i built was pyramids with a leader which i finally got when i brought the great russian bear to its knees....

although the ai will recover from a loss of one or two cities early, they don't sufficiently enough to withstand continual pressure...not only that they will give into your demands while you take down another rival.

[MarshalN]

I know you can rush them with units early and win, but that's really the boring way to do it I think.... every game you just kinda build a few cities, crush them, and that's it. I prefer letting things run... and win through some other means.

Like culture victory.... I want to try it, but I haven't been able to play without getting nailed by an alliance of AIs yet.

[War4ever]

i totally agree..... but you need to learn warfare anyways so why not learn it first. As i become more aware of the game mechanics and such my strategies will "evolve" into a more peacefull way

i always preferred conquering the world to building the spaceship... but in doing my conquering, i felt it was necessary to build up my lands as welll.....

I hate the trash the ai till he has one city, surround him and build the ship.....

i like wars....followed by lengthy peace...rinse repeat!

Diplomatic victory is anticlimatic...... the culture victory is most appealing to me

[MarshalN]

What I used to do in Civ2 is to build a completely dominating lead in tech. I play peaceful for the most part, and make sure I have Great Wall or UN to make forced peace when necessary.

Then once I know I can crush them (usually when I get armour and they're still stuck on pikemen) I go crush them. A few turns, a bit of an army building, and the game's over. It's not like I played on easy either, it was always deity.

Just have to adjust to a new game, sigh.

[Steve Clark]

That is exactly right, my friend. That had been my Civ2 strategy as well, a perfectionist builder until I'm ready to clobber under fundy, even at the deity level. But Firaxis took to heart the criticisms of such Civ2 strategies (and laughable AI), as well as listening way too much to the SMAC and CtP players, that they vowed to make Civ3 a really different game, strategic-wise, from Civ2. They did succeed and old vets like war4, xin, smash, rah, ming, bird, you, myself and others have to learn to adapt. As I had said in that thread, I think we would rather be complaining about the frustrating AI than about how easy and predictable the Civ3 AI is.

Good to have you around, don't forget to check out the Civ3-Stories forum here. I hope you might be able to use your great writing skills to conjur up a story or two.

[MarshalN]

I never liked SMAC, and I think right now, Civ3 is leaning dangerously close to SMAC for my taste.

The problem is that now there's no way to avoid a war, unless you're virtually paying tribute to the AI. Whereas war was always an option that you don't have to take in Civ2, war is now a necessity. I don't have a problem with it in terms of playing wise... I can easily adapt and am already doing so, but at the same time, I hate it when game makers make decisions for me.

It's true that most civs in the real world had to fight a war or two with other civs in their early times, but more often than not, the scale of the world is far too big for civs to come into real conflict anything before 1700. China and Japan had a few small wars, but not until 1800s did conflicts really escalated into national warfare. The East and West had basically no contact other than some occasional envoys. In this game, however, if you aren't ready for war at all times, you're screwed.

[Steve Clark]

I think geopolitics can help in that. I'm not that familiar with all of the civs and their attributes, but I believe you can choose those opponents that perhaps will be less incline to militarism the political). Also, choosing a larger map with fewer civs can help to grow in isolation (the geographical). If you have 2 or 3 civs occupying the same relatively small continent, it is impossible to expect to not engage in both offensive and defensive wars, unlike in Civ2. In my first, I cleared off my continent really early on and then I was free to build however I wanted. I prefer to win by conquest because that involves all elements of the game, from expansion and building to culture and diplomacy. To me, those are the means to accomplish the goal. The same can be said in reverse, wars (however they are abstracted at the civ scale) are the means to accomplish cultural, diplomatic or space goals.

[Cookie Monster]

I'm a veteran Civ2 player who now loves Civ3. I still play Civ2 but it has been a couple of weeks since the last time I played Civ2!


Anyway, I think one way to avoid war (if you love being a peaceful builder) is to not neglect your military. Have a stong military and the AI will not pick on you so much. A strong military and a high culture rating should earn you the respect you need to not have the Ai declare war on you for the slightest reason.

My 2 cents.

[Steve Clark]

One more thing. Memorize Vel's posts in his strategy guide thread. He is an extremely good anaytical player, articulate and well versed in the differences between Civ2 and Civ3 as it relates to strategic thinking.

[kmj]

I've been able to avoid war at lower levels by being militarily stronger than the other civs. Also, I played a game where I was weaker (about 4th out of 8) for the whole game, but I stayed on the good side of Rome (had to pay a little tribute occasionally) who was the real big dog and joined when the world beat up on egypt (weakest) and india (stronger than me). I kept pace, building up enough military to make the other civs know I wasn't a pushover. I was near the lead in techs, but not ahead, but I managed to pull out a space race victory when rome (1st place), china (3rd), and Germany (5th) joined against an aggressive Japan (2nd place). They wasted resources destroying japan while I beelined for synthetic fibers. China built the UN, but with only 4 civs left I could guarantee a "no majority" by abstaining.

It was a great game, because I was behind the whole time. I did gain a bit of power by being opportunitistic when Egypt was down, taking three of it's once great cities after the other civs had weakened them, but I don't think the results would have been too much different if I hadn't. I kept up good relations with the right civs, stayed near the lead in techs and pulled out a space race, all that after starting on an isle (room for 6 cities) that was >75% jungle. 'Course this was on warlord.


It's a different game; in fact, I think its less focused on war than Civ2... you need to be strong in all aspects: diplomatically, culturally, militarily, scientifically; which is something I think is great. If you think that you can avoid war for the whole game, the just remember pre-WWII england and france... pre-perl harbor US.. etc. War is inevitable, but if your prepared and have decent relations then usually its much less painful. Sometimes they do gang up on you. I had that happen once, and it was annoying; but that's only happened once, so far.

[zapperio]

It is simple to avoid a war with most belligerent civs. When they demand something outragious offer a counter-proposal. offer to give the civ 5 gold tribute and they'll be happy and go away. conflict avoided at the cost of 5 gold.

Zap

[MarshalN]

You sure about that 5 gold thing?

I'll give it a shot

As with the game, I think I am still just sticking with the bad habit of keeping maybe 1 or 2 units per city like I used to in Civ2. With Great Walls back then you don't need more. Now, of course, is a different story.....

[vmxa1]

I always avoid request that way. They want tech or MPP or RoP, I just offer maps and ask what would you give. They make an offer and that is the end of it. I never have to give the MPP or a one side tech trade.

[War4ever]

you know i have no problem giving 5-17 gold when asked upon by a strong nation... i NEVER did this in civ2 but then .....look at my name...civ3 doesnt' work that way and just remmeber how revenge is sweet later on...

a large or medium sized military seems to prevent all but the most hating of your civ to declare war on you

i make sure i have 3 defenders per city and / or in despot as many as the indicator states ...

i tend to be real weak early.....taking chance with new empty cities.....but i build my cities closer together than most i think..

easy on my corruption and i make up for the smaller cites late by acquiring more land through forcefull means

[ranald]

Originally posted by MarshalN
You sure about that 5 gold thing?

I'll give it a shot

As with the game, I think I am still just sticking with the bad habit of keeping maybe 1 or 2 units per city like I used to in Civ2. With Great Walls back then you don't need more. Now, of course, is a different story.....

Negotiation in Civ3 is almost like real life- you *never* accept
the first offer, or expect someone to accept your first offer. (Hey,
or if someone accepts your first offer, you didn't ask for enough).

I did that too in Civ2, just have a few units per city until later
in the game when I had a big tech lead, a huge productive
economy and an urge to see exactly how many cities I could
take in onr turn....

In Civ3, the AI is better- the AI civs are more aggressive and
better at taking advantage of opportunities. Weakness is treated as, well, weakness, and if you are weak the AI will abuse you.
You may even get dogpiled and partitioned. Build some extra
units, they're worth the investment. And don't worry, unit
maintenance no longer requires shields, only gold, so there is
no production penalty to having a standing army.

[Arrian]

Maintaining a large army (compared to what a peaceful builder is used to from CIV II) is a necessity in CIV III. I discovered early on that if the AI thought you were weak, it would demand things and/or attack you.

The way military power is calculated appears to be pretty silly: number of units (including workers, btw). So when you go to your military advisor and he tells you that your army is weak compared to the AI... build some units. Once you reach parity, you're usually actually stronger than them, as you will tend to keep your troops top-of-the-line, whereas the AI has a puzzling tendency to upgrade some, but keep all sorts of ancient units around into the modern age. Having high culture also aids diplomacy, which does help out the peaceful builder strategy.

I don't recall having played an entirely peaceful game yet, but I also don't end up fighting constantly (2-3 wars per game, I'd say). Be particularly wary of Mutual Protection Pacts - they will often result in unexpected consequences, so stay out of them unless you have a specific purpose in mind.

-Arrian

p.s. I, too, am a Civ II vet who eventually got to the point where even Diety was easy. Still, my first Civ III game was on chieftain, and I'm hangin' out on Monarch for now.

[MadWombat]

Heh. Oddly, I played CivII on King, but am having no troubles with CivIII on Deity. *shrug*