Civ 3: Worthless Junk?

[Desert Journeyman]

There have been a number of critics, lately, whose reviews of Civilization III have been exemplary. It isn't, though, that I like to fly in the face of the status quo. Alternately, others say that the game lacks something its predecessors enjoyed. I'm not here to become their sycophant either. What I am here to do is offer my opinion, as unfortunately candid as it may be.

When I first aquired my copy of Civilization III, I was immediately impressed. The game seemed to shout "revival!" in large, bold letters and with a schnazzy new font. Unfortunately, for Sid Meier and Firaxis, that original notion was probably intended to be half the battle. On interta alone, few games can survive, and Civilization III is no different. While the graphics are somewhat improved, the sound calculated to unconsciously fill tiny voids in the ambiance otherwise glaring, and the unit database imbued with a whole range of "special" civilization-specific designs, I cannot help but cry out "is that all?!"

Did Civilization III truly live up to the legacy of Civilization II, and indeed, Alpha Centauri? While the later is remembered for being somewhat more complex, and at times, somewhat depressing in its atmosphere, it did bring in a "media" element previously lacking. Fantastic voice-overs and movie clips helped to define the vast scope of a brilliant technology tree and seemingly endless "wonder" list. Most of Alpha Centauri's ideas were new by default - it was on a planet other than Earth. Civilization III, however, takes its units, wonders, and tech tree directly from Civilization II with little - if any - difference whatsoever. Icons now move during combat. That is about the only change in a combat system which borrows Alpha Centari "status" rates, but neglects morale and the final "commando/hero" rung of its predecessor.

Civilization III blends the element of strategic resources and harvesting nicely, allowing civilizations to "sieze" slaves and direct the expansion of culture, trade, and luxury as never before. The game can, however, draw dependance on these resources beyond reason. There are times when even the most signifigant and heavy-handed campaign will yield nothing, and when the resources avaliable are so meager as to not be worth the effort to gain them. What good is an empire with one knight to its name when ten cities and twenty muskateers were sacrificed for the gain?

Then there's the fact that iron and horses seem randomly distributed, often not in great abundance. When one civilization - especially over an ocean - is heavily entrenched over one or two - the ONLY - iron squares, there is no hope.

This wouldn't be terrible, really. Why not trade or pay another civilization to offer iron or horses or saltpeter? Because the civilizations are ruthless. They expand without reason, often creating cities in the most random squares, calaculated - apparantly - to drive you towards war or hem in your peripheral - and often worthless - territory. But then this begs the question: if worthless, why spill more milk? Because it was mine, and because all those cities do is pump out military units soon to move against your workers. Apparantly, money means nothing in Civ III, for even the most impoverished empires can subdue the most wealthy. Gold can be spent for peace, though the computer civilizations will often turn upon you the very next chance they get. What's more: they will ally, all of them, against you, apparantly without method and only with madness. The civilizations with which you compete are ruthless and overly-matched, even on Chieftan level. One shouldn't have to be an expert to win on what is widly-accredited to be "the most insigifigant" of all difficulty settings.

Attacking units, even at regular levels, can often debunk and destroy elite or veteran units - sometimes without a scratch. The AI will construct cities in the most useless places, yet somehow "reaps a profit". When they sieze your cities, they will drain the population without cause and consistently sell every improvement already there. The AI seems also to have an endless stream of units despite being literally impoverished. There are moments when I have three thousand gold ahead of their paltry coffers, yet I can do nothing with it. I have heard much talk of "luberjacking". Perhaps this is the AI's method of madness?

Civilization III moves forward very little and back very much. Even the special units, one of the mainstay elements with which the game was sold, are hardly more than "special" or veteran-status units. In most cases, they are really not worth the hassel and of dubious value. Most appear to be almost exactly the same. There's also the issue of "realism". At a time when Europa Universalis really sets the standard for gaming companies "to know their stuff", we get a horsemen as the Iriquois and Chinese unit when Brave and Cho-Ku-No would have sufficed just the same. Despite the apparant "stereotypes", even the Brave is no different, in practice, than the German Panzer or Roman legionnaire.

All in all, Civilization III combines so many features as to make the game utterly unplayable.

[Jason]

[Libertarian]

Gah. What a waste of a mouse click. If you don't like it, don't play it.

[HunterAssasin]

The civilizations with which you compete are ruthless and overly-matched, even on Chieftan level. One shouldn't have to be an expert to win on what is widly-accredited to be "the most insigifigant" of all difficulty settings.

While the game does have it's faults it seems your just lashing out because you totally suck at it. Chieftan is patheticly easy to win on, you can easily be lauching ICBMs left and right while the AIs are in the industrial era.

[player1]

Isn't this suppsed to go in general forum?

P.S.
Post like this are reson why I normally don't browse General Forum.

[Grim Legacy]

A prime example of a Whine. There are so many alleged 'game faults' that are simply not true or absent, I won't even start on them.

Try playing it some more, you might get to like it.

[Desert Journeyman]

If the game is so pathetically easy, then why is the AI so ruthless on all of my versons?

Even when I elect to play with some of the non-militant Civs, the only contact I get is "we demand tribute - you exist because we let you". Even while I'm paying, they then begin a war of conquest.

Somebody said to me that the only way to win was to use the so-called "city/warrior/settler" meanouver and grab as much land as possible immediately. Why so? The game really isn't worth time spent if there's only one method of victory each and every try.

Again, how is it other people don't seem to get the same results at all? Even if I'm a horrible player, I've managed to keep up in the steam age, the only civilization on a continent fully composed of jungle, with no iron. Furthermore, only one of my fourteen cities has been captured and held, and I'm preparing to "free" it now and sieze another.

That still, however, doesn't make up for the fact that even AI civilizations I've never encountered declare war on me, and that the agressive expansion of two civilizations - one of whom I did not even attack first - has brought the other five down upon me. None of them trades world maps - a problem never rectified in all of the Civ line -, and none of them ever wants to trade tech save when I pay hundreds of gold or a "military" advance.

Any tips?

[jadlakha]

Originally posted by Desert Journeyman
There have been a number of critics, lately, whose reviews of Civilization III have been exemplary. It isn't, though, that I like to fly in the face of the status quo. Alternately, others say that the game lacks something its predecessors enjoyed. I'm not here to become their sycophant either. What I am here to do is offer my opinion, as unfortunately candid as it may be.

When I first aquired my copy of Civilization III, I was immediately impressed. The game seemed to shout "revival!" in large, bold letters and with a schnazzy new font. Unfortunately, for Sid Meier and Firaxis, that original notion was probably intended to be half the battle. On interta alone, few games can survive, and Civilization III is no different. While the graphics are somewhat improved, the sound calculated to unconsciously fill tiny voids in the ambiance otherwise glaring, and the unit database imbued with a whole range of "special" civilization-specific designs, I cannot help but cry out "is that all?!"

Did Civilization III truly live up to the legacy of Civilization II, and indeed, Alpha Centauri? While the later is remembered for being somewhat more complex, and at times, somewhat depressing in its atmosphere, it did bring in a "media" element previously lacking. Fantastic voice-overs and movie clips helped to define the vast scope of a brilliant technology tree and seemingly endless "wonder" list. Most of Alpha Centauri's ideas were new by default - it was on a planet other than Earth. Civilization III, however, takes its units, wonders, and tech tree directly from Civilization II with little - if any - difference whatsoever. Icons now move during combat. That is about the only change in a combat system which borrows Alpha Centari "status" rates, but neglects morale and the final "commando/hero" rung of its predecessor.

Civilization III blends the element of strategic resources and harvesting nicely, allowing civilizations to "sieze" slaves and direct the expansion of culture, trade, and luxury as never before. The game can, however, draw dependance on these resources beyond reason. There are times when even the most signifigant and heavy-handed campaign will yield nothing, and when the resources avaliable are so meager as to not be worth the effort to gain them. What good is an empire with one knight to its name when ten cities and twenty muskateers were sacrificed for the gain?

Then there's the fact that iron and horses seem randomly distributed, often not in great abundance. When one civilization - especially over an ocean - is heavily entrenched over one or two - the ONLY - iron squares, there is no hope.

This wouldn't be terrible, really. Why not trade or pay another civilization to offer iron or horses or saltpeter? Because the civilizations are ruthless. They expand without reason, often creating cities in the most random squares, calaculated - apparantly - to drive you towards war or hem in your peripheral - and often worthless - territory. But then this begs the question: if worthless, why spill more milk? Because it was mine, and because all those cities do is pump out military units soon to move against your workers. Apparantly, money means nothing in Civ III, for even the most impoverished empires can subdue the most wealthy. Gold can be spent for peace, though the computer civilizations will often turn upon you the very next chance they get. What's more: they will ally, all of them, against you, apparantly without method and only with madness. The civilizations with which you compete are ruthless and overly-matched, even on Chieftan level. One shouldn't have to be an expert to win on what is widly-accredited to be "the most insigifigant" of all difficulty settings.

Attacking units, even at regular levels, can often debunk and destroy elite or veteran units - sometimes without a scratch. The AI will construct cities in the most useless places, yet somehow "reaps a profit". When they sieze your cities, they will drain the population without cause and consistently sell every improvement already there. The AI seems also to have an endless stream of units despite being literally impoverished. There are moments when I have three thousand gold ahead of their paltry coffers, yet I can do nothing with it. I have heard much talk of "luberjacking". Perhaps this is the AI's method of madness?

Civilization III moves forward very little and back very much. Even the special units, one of the mainstay elements with which the game was sold, are hardly more than "special" or veteran-status units. In most cases, they are really not worth the hassel and of dubious value. Most appear to be almost exactly the same. There's also the issue of "realism". At a time when Europa Universalis really sets the standard for gaming companies "to know their stuff", we get a horsemen as the Iriquois and Chinese unit when Brave and Cho-Ku-No would have sufficed just the same. Despite the apparant "stereotypes", even the Brave is no different, in practice, than the German Panzer or Roman legionnaire.

All in all, Civilization III combines so many features as to make the game utterly unplayable.

it sounds like u havent adjusted to the game and are playing it like civ2. You seem to hate challenge and therefore do not like civ 3

[Jaybe]

If you are weak militarily, the AI will victimize you.
On the other hand, sometimes it's just a bluff -- the AI is weak, but they don't want YOU to know that.

[Jason]

I've found Regent easy and I'm moving to Monarch for my next game. I wasn't lucky with water or strategic resources, although I did have 2 excess luxuries almost from the start.

Basically, if you maintain a large-ish military establishment, you don't NEED strategic resources that much. Riflemen don't take any. You only need horses for offensive war, and you can live without iron. I only had to secure resources when it was time to build a rail network.

If you have riflemen and artillery, you are very safe even without resources.

EDIT: And I had 5 cities until the Industrial age, btw. But unlike AI cities they were pampered and size 12. AI relations on Regent and below are pretty easy; the more contacts you have, the easier trading is; you sell techs for per turn and buy them for lump sums if you have to. Remember that a sale is only possible after the last 20 turn sale period elapses.

In general I've found the AI not super-aggressive, especially if I have an army. Remember that army support is more convenient now, and when you are building settlers at the start, if the towns population is low enough you can build some military units.

Also be certain to keep tech spending at the lowest rate possible to still make progress until you can research techs in less than 32 turns. The cap works for you that way. This tends to give you the emergancy cash you need for diplomacy at the start - bribing would-be attackers and so forth. Also for buying techs if possible. Once you have enough contacts with other civs, you can buy a tech for lump sum and get it back in per-turns from the others if they don't have it. A lucrative business.

Once again, these strategies work, and work very well, on Regent (prince) level. So chieftan should be ridiculous. I'm told that on large maps technology stagnates on Chieftan because the computers don't help technology advance... But I don't play on Chieftan

[albiedamned]

Originally posted by Desert Journeyman
Apparantly, money means nothing in Civ III, for even the most impoverished empires can subdue the most wealthy. Gold can be spent for peace, though the computer civilizations will often turn upon you the very next chance they get. What's more: they will ally, all of them, against you, apparantly without method and only with madness. The civilizations with which you compete are ruthless and overly-matched, even on Chieftan level. One shouldn't have to be an expert to win on what is widly-accredited to be "the most insigifigant" of all difficulty settings.

In my opinion, this passage from your original post demonstrates that you have not yet figured out to play the game well. I could pick apart what you wrote point by point, but I'll just say that you should learn how to play better before you criticize.

[Desert Journeyman]

Artillery? What advance does artillery come with? Isn't iron required?

Iron is fairly vital. Not only does it allow railroads, but it is vital to construct pikemen, knights, and all varieties of warship. The AI is particularly intelligent - one of Civ III's few 'strong points' - at sea and will often bombard improvements and cities along the coast with impunity.

Furthermore, if there is only one "uber-expansionist", tried-and-true method to win - especially early on -, the game isn't worth playing. The beauty of Civ II was that all empires - large and small - would work. And no, Civ III doesn't introduce any realism on that end. Even the Netherlands survived against England and France, both much larger nations. Granted it was later invaded by the Germans, but it did have several allies. In Civ III, you can usually expect to have none.

I've tried to "pay for peace", but the AI Civs regularly go to war and break any treaty I attempt to honor. Then, against one or two nations, you are forced to resort to war when their cities begin to encroach upon your periphery. Some, even under your control, would be worthless.

Anyone else?

[albiedamned]

Each additional time you post, you further demonstrate that you just aren't good at this game yet. There are plenty of ways to avoid the situations you describe, and there are plenty of other ways to win besides the early domination approach. For details, read basically all the other threads in this forum. Start with Vel's thread - it's excellent.

[HunterAssasin]

I didn't say the game was patheticly easy I said chieftan was. The first two games I played on chieftan I lost because I was playing with strategies I used in Civ II. The first game I got my ass kicked early on when I was playing with the Japanese and trying to conquer everyone.

The second game I played purely defensive as the Greeks and only was in one war throughout the entire game against the Japanese, and all I did was enlist the help of the americans, romans, and egyptians and they destroyed the japanese for me. I eventually lost that game when I was forced to retire and was still in the industrial age.

After that I started to change my strategy and came here to look for some good strategies and I was eventually waging war with modern armors against enemy cavalry.

So my basic advise would be to read up on some strategies on this board and use them, the best one that I use is selling all your techs for gold per turn and in my last game I was getting 1k gold per turn with 0.10.0.

But one thing that you must do early on is expand so you can get resources later on. If you don't get resources you need your gunna have to either amass a large army and take the resources or suck up to them and trade for em.

[Jason]

Catapults and artillery require no special resources. Niether do riflemen.

So on my map on Regent where I had no water, no iron, no saltpeter, no horses, and no coal, I also had no great difficulties. If you build enough of your best defenders, it keeps them off your back. The use of money and the technology trade is important.

You don't HAVE to hyperexpand on Prince at least, although it doesn't hurt. The AI does, but that makes it stronger, mostly.

Now that I've gotten to make my joke, seriously, DJ, try a few more games. Use some of the tricks at the startup, like timing your settlers to pop out when your cities hit 3. But so long as you get what, 8-12 cities before borders lock up, you're good to go on normal map/prince, I only needed 5.

My first few games were washes too, but it isn't as hard as you're making it out. Iron and coal are tricky because they are so useful, but it's not usually like 1 source per map or something silly like that. I got an iron eventually in my tiny map.

Besta luck.

[Jason]

The No Resource Army, btw.

Spearmen, 1-2-1
Archer 2-1-1
Longbowman 4-1-1
Rifleman 4-6-1
Catapult
Artillery.


Artillery, btw, are about 50-80 percent of a great army. I had no source of rubber when I got replaceable parts, but I could still take riflemen-guarded cities with nothing but artillery and riflemen. The trick is to reduce cities to smoking piles of rubble.

The most miserably resourced empire in the world can kick some major ass right after getting replacable parts.

[Desert Journeyman]

How can I survive? Again, especially on a large map with many islands, my cities and units are bombarded by warships with iron cannon. Meanwhile, I cannot defend my territory and am under constant attack.

Would that be so bad? If I brought the wars on myself? No. Yet the AI is ruthless. Is there a reason for its agressive tendancies?

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you've survived, but no other nation seems to want to sell its technology or even contact mine. Treaties last a turn or two with them, at best. I've got 3,200 gold and they've got 60, but again, they consistently win. Perhaps they use this "lumberjack" technique?

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Desert Journeyman
How can I survive? Again, especially on a large map with many islands, my cities and units are bombarded by warships with iron cannon. Meanwhile, I cannot defend my territory and am under constant attack.

Would that be so bad? If I brought the wars on myself? No. Yet the AI is ruthless. Is there a reason for its agressive tendancies?

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you've survived, but no other nation seems to want to sell its technology or even contact mine. Treaties last a turn or two with them, at best. I've got 3,200 gold and they've got 60, but again, they consistently win. Perhaps they use this "lumberjack" technique?

1. The AI CAN be ruthless, but it isn't always ruthless. I have played 3 games now, 1 on Regent, 1 on Monarch, and 1 on Emperor. No AI nation has ever declared war on me. They like to gang up on SOMEBODY, but it isn't necessarily YOU. I have seen 14 AI civs gang up on another AI civ. Make sure you have a good military, good science, good culture, a large enough empire, trade periodically with AI to improve matters, or you can enter into some mutual protection pacts yourself. Heck you may have the chance to gang up on an AI civ with all the others, I have done it too.

2. The AI WILL sell techs to you, you just have to give them enough cash (lump sum). In ancient times, expect to pay maybe 100 gold. In the industrial times, about 800-1000 each. In my current emperor game I have turned the science rate to 0 and cash rate to 100 since ancient times. Up till now (just got replacable parts) every singel one of my tech was bought.

3. The AI doesn't use lumberjack. Or at least I have never seen them doing it.

4. The trick to survive, is not to go to war at all if you are not ready.

5. You definitely can survive without resources. The combat system is designed that way. You can also launch surgical wars just to grab a resource city or two.

[Desert Journeyman]

You call for a tall order. Attempting to manage expansion of my trade, cities, military, and technology would be nigh to impossible.

What types of units do you usually rely on during Ancient times? I graduated from the spearmen to horseman, archer to longbow, and finally, to musketeer and cavalry. I've been without pikemen, knights, or frigates - the last of which is apparantly vital because I cannot otherwise defend my shores.

It isn't just "what's in" Civ III, but what's not in Civ III that counts. I expected so much ... more.

[Alpha187]

Hey Journeyman, by comparison of most people here I am a relative newbie, on Civ 2 I used to always play on one level above warlord (sometimes two levels) but when I played Civ 3 and tried playing on war lord I found myself getting my ass handed to me, but then I read these forums for a different feel on how to approach the game.

The trick is to not play like Civ II, the AI is not ruthless unless you provoke them in some way or dont let them get a few good deals at the beggining of the game. I dont have time to explain my strategy right now, but if you dont mind trying a different approach to things (you will never have to start the game the same way to win) e-mail me at jeremy_r_carr@hotmail.com and I will write up how I approach the game.

I have to go meet a friend now, but basicly to win you need to be shrewd with some technologies and sell your dead end ones (like monarchy, that will keep them from going to the better republic for awhile) use your culture to expand your territory if your scrapped for territory, if you plan on going to war remember you need to be able to march into the capital within 35 turns (the AI seems to be able to build a god awful sized army with no upkeep costs) and yeah, if you want something more detailed e-mail me.

~ Jeremy

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Desert Journeyman
Treaties last a turn or two with them, at best. I've got 3,200 gold and they've got 60, but again, they consistently win. Perhaps they use this "lumberjack" technique?

Spend that 3200. It does you no good just sitting in your treasury. Buy some military. The AI respects strength, a nation with a huge treasury and no military is not strong. It's a nice, fat juicy target.

[Sytass]

I don't really want to break in on this subject, but I'd like to add my two cents on this subject.

Actually, I was shocked by how fast the AI (or rather PO - programmed opponent) expands. If I didn't react quickly enough, I found myself cut off of further routes of expansion, ressources and such. So I had to adapt. And yes, I hope this expansionism will be cut down on in a future patch, for I can make no distinction at the moment between expansionists and non-expansionists.

My current game, which is my first serious game after trying and fiddling a while, sees me as Persia. I had only horses as strategic ressoure. No iron, no saltpeter, no coal. Zulu and Babylonians roamed from south to north through my country and founded settlements there. However, through diplomacy I managed to keep up with the other civs. technologically, and especially on the cultural level. Through trade with luxuries I financed getting treaties to assure my safety, or to fund my research. I have absorbed some cities too close to my border. (Actually, all but two settlements on my northern border.

After I traded some techs for coal and iron, I managed to industrialize my country, build railroads, and now that we approach the modern age, I find to have an abundance of oil and rubber.

This just as an example that at higher difficulty settings, without the vital mid-game ressources, you can not only stay alive (granted, my score is the third lowest of 8, but I have the second highest culture rating), but actually keep up with the POs. Oh, and in the year 1756, I have not been at war once since 4000 BC.

[MaSsConFUsi0n]

the ai isn't that psycho... just be nice and don't be a complete jerk to them. also, the ai won't declare war on you if you are strong. they tend to bluff a lot in the diplomacy... that shows that you're powerful.

in my games, i piss the ai off on purpose just cause i get bored. it's fun taking on the whole planet.

MaSsConFUsi0n

[Jason]

I think you've just had bad luck with the resource seed and the AIs, DJ. It isn't normally that bad.

As for what army to build, Spearman in droves, catapults, and horsemen are big favorites. That's the econo army, minimum casualties. Swordsmen and Immortals have the most offensive power but actually die in combat a bit more since they fight to the death, wheras mounted troops only do if the defender is down to 1 hp.

I'm not much of an ancient warrior, so I build mostly defensive units and try to keep out of trouble till I want to make it. I play conquest only games with a peaceful ancient period, myself.