Not Fair and Just Not Fun Anymore

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Dissident
You newbies are not man enough to play Civ3. Good riddance.

Dissident
Read Moraelin's post above your own please...

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by waasabi
I really don't understand the complaint about the "sunday gamer". Sounds more like the self-described "sunday gamer" player type would be more satisfied by watching a movie.

Excellent point. Indeed, a lot of us play a game just like watching a movie: just to pass the time away. No brains required, no challenge needed, and no random twists that push the difficulty to the roof expected. Think about it. Noone complained that there was no challenge in watching Matrix. I mean, really, you didn't have to have mad skillz or think strategy every turn. There was no point in which to say "oops, I missed, now I have to restart the movie from the beginning." You just sit there in front of the TV, maybe with a can of beer, and... that's it. Sit and watch.

It also means that we'll have very little sense of pride in finishing a game. About as much as feeling pride in having managed to see Matrix until the end. It's not "Woohoo! I managed to take over the world, Pinky!" It's "yawn, another 4 hours down the drain. That's fun. Let's start again."

However, personally I find that a game is more immersive and keeps my attention occupied better than a movie does. That's why I've paid some 50 bucks on an imported Civ 3, instead of spending like 3 bucks to rent a DVD. You have a problem with that?

That said, yes, for _me_ the Chieftain mode is way too easy already. (Probably on account of the literally thousands of hours total spent with Civ 1, Colonization, Master of Magic, Master of Orion, Civ 2, SMAC and so on.) For Venger and the rest of the "I play only on Deity and it's too easy" crowd, probably even more so. But if other people don't appreciate even that challenge, why DO you have to force a challenge upon them? As I've said, just give them a "sandbox" mode, that's one step under Chieftain, which is basically Chieftain plus a built in infinite money trainer. Noone forces you to use it, if you really want a challenge, but other people might appreciate it.

On the other hand, I can easily think of OTHER games which were way too hard for me without a cheat. I can think of games where the "challenge" made me want to bite the CD into tiny little pieces and mail it back to the developper. So I DO know how that feels. I can definitely relate to C Chulainn's grief, because I've felt the same kind of grief before myself.

[EnochF]

Chieftain level isn't easy enough for the casual gamer, i.e., me (not a newbie, thank you very much), which is why I haven't played Civ III in over a month, and I won't touch the damn thing until they fix it.

How do I explain my gaming experience to Deity-level inhuman monsters who say things like "You obviously are not cut out to play Civ3" and "You newbies are not man enough to play Civ3. Good riddance"...

Look, when I play a game of Civ III, the object, for me, is not just to win, not just to finish and take some kind of pride in merely having come through the game without being wiped out... the object for me is to build the grandest civilization possible, a civilization with innumerable wonders, rivers of gold, hundreds of cities, happy citizens, vast armies... when the game is finally over, I want to look down on my civilization and say "Magnificent."

Nevermind. I don't think you could ever understand. Go on, guys, have fun with your "challenge."

I'm not selling Civ III on eBay, because I honestly believe that eventually there will be a patch that will make it playable, or at least finish the editor so that I can make some mods.

[Moraelin]

If that's the case, EnochF, I guess you could always open the editor and go to the difficulty level tab. And there will be something called "Cost Factor". On Chieftain, it's set to 20, which means the AI will have to pay twice as much as you do for anything. Push it to, say, 50 and you may well be having an apollo program while the AI is still making its first settler.

Or you could download the cheat mod, which is especially built for people who want to make an empire with every single wonder, and streets paved with gold. The Borg and their Hive government there pay no upkeep for anything, so no matter what you do, you'll still have an income. Plus some other unique advantages. And it also comes with instructions on how to play it. Frankly, if anyone manages to lose even on Regent with that mod, I'd really like to know how did you manage that

[gachnar]

Originally posted by Venger
Ah yes, someone points out the emperor has no clothes, and here come the sycophants with invisible thread and needles to try and weave one.

You like the word "sychophant" and that metaphor dont you?

He is correct that resources as currently done render the game either unplayably easy or unplayably hard. If the AI doesn't have a resource, it's screwed. If you don't, you're often screwed. Oil, Coal, Iron are three things found on EVERY continent.

I had a similar problem about a week ago. The persians are my friends. They have Iron. Mine disappeared after 10 turns. Without Iron I can't defend myself from England and Germany. What did I do? Did I go whine about how the game was impossible to win?

Nope. I jacked taxes up to 100%, and about 6 turns later bought the first world war. The next turn 2 boats of Bowman, and 2 boats of all the swordsmen who made it to the coast in time arrived outside the persian city holding the Iron. It took another 4 turns before the first troops from any other Civ showed up, but Persia was completely destroyed before I could build Cavalry.

I'm sure this is a tactic that even Venger would find enjoyable. I paid about 1300 gold, and 2 spices to unite the world against a civ that had been trading techs and (unknowingly) protecting me from other Civs. Why? I wanted their Iron.

Am I the only one who can pull this off?

Oh and yes, he wants to be ABLE to win every time. So do I. Nobody likes predestination. I've had my share of bad starts, but to not have ANY chance to overcome the game mechanics means you are walking into a wall.

I have never played a game that was un-winable. Maybe you have to win it by a mixture of diplomacy/management, but they are all winable. I can't think of anything needed for a culture win that requires strategic resources.

So lets be honest: He wants to have everything available for a conquest win. But he doesn't want to fight the Babylonians for the coal? Classic cost-benefit question: Which is worth more to you: Babylonians as allies, or railroads.

[Be Quicker]

Can I just ask, was this before or after the patch?

Because after the patch I seem to have noticed that especialy the early strategic recources (horses and iron) are quite abundant and also located quite close to my position (small map, regent, favorite settings).

Midgame recources on the other hand seem to be distributed more random. Indeed coal has been quite rare in my games.

But they never have been a game breaker for me. Then again, I allways try to conquer at least one competitor early on, because the AI is better at founding loads of cities than I am (Excellent job, Mao. And thank you very much for those lovely cities. Horseman rush! Gotta love the retreat ability.).

I do however skim the map (ctrl-shift-m) in late game and the resources allways seem pretty well allocated and only the small civs loose out.

[Moraelin]

The H shaped map with almost no resources in my half was definitely after the patch.

Maybe the map size has something to do with it, too. I'm playing on Large, and it's quite normal that resources are few and far in between. Luxuries, even more so.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by Zanzin
Man, if you're in 1950 and still in the industrial age techs...I've gotta be honest, the problem is with you, not the game.

Wasn't one of the biggest complaints about civ2 that the AI wasn't hard enough? That winning the game was for gone conclusion?

And now, Civ3 rolls around, and now winning ISN'T a for gone conclusion, and all these people come out of their holes to have a whinge about it. Well, sorry if the game is a challenge for you. But isn't that what life is about? Challenges?

If you're already playing on chieftan, I guess the answer would be to go into the editor and really dumb things down a bit - increase resource distribution, decrease chance of resource disapearing, change the stats of units so that all the good ones are available to your civ and your civ alone, start off with 10,000 gold etc etc. Would that be easy enough for you? I'd call it boring, personally.

To answer your insults - sorry, points - one by one:
1. The problem started because obviously the game sets research goals assuming that you can start laying down the tracks and get the increased research. Everything was going fine tech-wise until I needed the coal - I'd been able in theory to get the trains moving since the early 18th century, but gradually I started falling further and further behind when it didn't happen.
2. The complaint about Civ2 being too easy came from a small coterie of loophole exploiting, formula-using uber-geeks who used strategies like ICS and the two way caravan cheat. Most people didn't find it too easy at King level and up.
3. Why yes, you go-getting, both-end-candle-burner you, life may be all about challenges. That's precisely why I don't want my computer games to like a rough day at the office as well...
4. I played on Chieftain because I wanted on that occasion, to have an easy game of glorious victories over hapless foes. I've never played at Chieftain before.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by Green Giant
Damn Firaxis for creating an AI that tries to win, damn them all to heck!

You crybabies just need something to whine about. Your just mad that a piece of programming code is mopping the floor with you. You do realize that you can change how many resources show up in the editor, don't you? You can do that to prop up your complete lack of skills.

Go play Duck Hunt so you can put the gun to the screen and win every time.

Quite apart from obviously having the social skills of a SPAS-12 shotgun, you're approaching this from the wrong angle here. Not all of us want to pit our wits against the computer. In fact, I suspect not many of us do, and that goes to the crux of the matter. Civ3 has been written only with the uber-geeks in mind. Of course I could sit here with a calculator, perusing the various files to discover every flaw in the AI and work out the correct strategy to win every time, but no thank you, that's hard work, and therefore not what I buy computer games for. If I wanted to play "I'm smarter than my computer" I'd buy a chess game. With Civ, I want to use my imagination a bit, be a bit flexible without having to play it the way the Central Kommittee decided it must be played.

[XPav]

I am not a Civ ubergeek. Hell, I've heard of (but never used or really investigated) some of the Civ2 strategies that work. Same for AC, same for Civ3. I play it pretty stupidly (yay for automated workers and governors that manage the population!) and still have a good time. So far, I'm up to Regent difficulty and still not having too many problems (couple close calls though). I don't think Civ3 is for the ubergeek -- maybe if you want to play it at higher levels.

The thing that bugs people about Civ3, I think, is that the resources create a situation where random events can completely screw up the way that you wanted to play and force you into actions (war, trade, whatever) that you don't want to do.

I can see how this can be irritating to some people. Personally, I like it. It provides some additional flavor to the game and forces me to do various things that I might not do otherwise. When I play Civ, I'm the "builder" type, but, well, if I need the iron, I've got to go to war. On the other hand, if I've got the iron, I might have to defend myself.

However, there's a solution for those that don't like the game the way it is -- fire up Civ3Edit, remove all the resource requirements for units, and remove all the resources. Done.

It's not that hard either. I setup a game where I added upgrade paths for Swordsman and Longbowmen so they'd get out of the stupid build menu.

[Arrian]

Hmm... I'm curious. What world settings resulted in only 1 coal resource? I've played a LOT of Civ III now, and I've never seen that. I usually play Normal Maps/8 civs (Continents/70% water/Temperate/Normal/4billion or 5billion). Now I have had instances where I had trouble getting iron or horses (or both, in what eventually turned out to be my most successful game to date), but in my experience the resources have been spread pretty well. The worst late-game resource distribution problem I've run into is a Monarch game as the Germans, where there is only 1 rubber on my continent, which is the larger of the two, and that one rubber is owned by the French. The Persians have 5 or so over on the other landmass. I saved that one and will return to it at some point to ponder which one to attack.

Thus far, after many games of Civ III played, I'm of the opinion that the resource distribution is pretty good. I DEFINITELY think that it's a great addition in terms of gameplay. I actually started playing 4 billion yr/old worlds more often than 5 billion because I wanted more clumping of the resources... it was more fun for me.

-Arrian

[dissent]

Hmm .. well, if you want to win everytime then you probably bought the wrong game.

You're in luck! I have a couple suggestions for those who feel Civ3 is too hard:

A perfect fit:
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categorie...p?pf_id=210541

This one might be too challenging for you, but please do give it a try:

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categorie...p?pf_id=204148

This sums up your playing experience with Civ3:

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categorie...p?pf_id=207337

Goodbye!

[art_vandelai]

Frankly, both sides present good arguments here. Just step aside and look at how far the game has come. You'll recall that for so many of the hard-core Civ2 players, Deity was not enouh of a challenge. With ICS and the tank/artillery rush, the game was made too easy to beat for some of its hardcore fans. It had to be made more difficult on Deity, and the ICS strategy was the main culprit behind the need for a change.

I hate games where you have to do everything the "right way" to win. Some people enjoy playing that way. The Civ genre, being one of the most open-ended games out there allows the player to have the total experience. For me, ICS seems cheesy, and I am not interested in beating Deity for the sake of beating it - I want a reasonably tough challenge without feeling "if I don't maximize X and Y after every turn, I will fall hopelessly behind." That's not my idea of a fun game!

Chieftain on CIV III isn't always as easy as it should be. I found it a little too easy (after first trying Regent and failing miserably) and dull once I had the lead over the AI), but that's just as a result of experience with other Civ games and having figured out how the Palace and Forbidden Palace worked. I think the game has taken on less of an open-ended style - to prosper you have to basically follow the standard pattern of building a whole bunch of settlers to expand/cut off the AI expansion and get all the land and resources you can, then kill your neighbour, then do whatever you want after that. In Civ 2, I could stop fighting and play a defensive game once I had my 10-12 cities, or filled up my continent to the borders I wanted. In Civ 3, you have to land grab - if the AI gets a good city site within your planned expansionary range before you do, it's extremely frustrating. Sometimes it's fun to try to overcome the obstacle, other times it just seems hopeless, and time for a restart.

Whether you play Chieftain or Diety, the AI does the same things - you may have more or less time to keep up, but the premise is the same. I think in the levels below Regent, it should ease up on the expansion quite a bit. For a newbie that hasn't had the benefit of playing TBS games, the initial land grab would be quite a difficult challenge to deal with, and it should be toned down a bit, as should the corruption away from capital city factor (in my first game, I built the Forbidden Palace right next to my capital where it made little improvement on my outlying cities, I suspect a true newbie wouldn't have a clue about things like optimum FP placement, or using leaders to rush build it.

I definitely find Regent the most fun (I don't want any advantages over the AI, thank you) but it does take many starts to get into a good position where winning is possible.

[Arrian]

Dissent - Now that's just nasty. So the guy is having trouble on chieftain, and doesn't like the game? Why insult him?

- a perplexed Arrian

[Deornwulf]

Originally posted by Venger
Ah yes, someone points out the emperor has no clothes, and here come the sycophants with invisible thread and needles to try and weave one.

He is correct that resources as currently done render the game either unplayably easy or unplayably hard. If the AI doesn't have a resource, it's screwed. If you don't, you're often screwed. Oil, Coal, Iron are three things found on EVERY continent. Just not in this game. The implementation is poor.

Oh and yes, he wants to be ABLE to win every time. So do I. Nobody likes predestination. I've had my share of bad starts, but to not have ANY chance to overcome the game mechanics means you are walking into a wall.

Venger

I respect your point of view but have to disagree. The resources distribution do not make the game unplayable. It is very realistic to expect that some civs are not going to have every resource. The cultures low on or lacking a particular resource either adapted or more likely were conquered by other cultures.

I know that you like to be able to win every time but doesn't that take away from the fun? Shouldn't there be some element of chance that might result in your defeat?

I will admit that in any game in which I was lacking iron within easy reach I quit and started a new game. Those have been far and few between. I probably should have tried to overcome with strategy but was too lazy.

There are far more major flaws with the game that can render it unplayable apart from the minor annoyance of the resources. It would have been nice if the game included a toggle for whether or not certain units should require a resource but the problem can be permanently addressed by modding the civ3.bic file.

I would have to say that the emperor has on a loincloth and fur hat in this instance

Deornwulf - The English Teacher

[XPav]

Originally posted by art_vandelai
I think the game has taken on less of an open-ended style - to prosper you have to basically follow the standard pattern of building a whole bunch of settlers to expand/cut off the AI expansion and get all the land and resources you can, then kill your neighbour, then do whatever you want after that

I disagree. I played a game where, as the French, I only had to kill off the pesky English that started on the same island as me and kick the Persians off my island, and then eventually won the game with a diplomatic victory with 10-12 cities. I was way behind land area compared to the Germans & Russians and nearly everyone else, but my cities were packed full of people and extremely productive, which allowed me to get far ahead in the science race, as well as having enough money to buy my opponent's loyalty.

Or, I could have done the space race.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Deornwulf
I know that you like to be able to win every time but doesn't that take away from the fun? Shouldn't there be some element of chance that might result in your defeat?

I'll tell you a brief story. I while ago, when The Sims had just been launched, I was a regular in the The Sims chat room. And THE number one most asked question would be: what are the cheats? Every other newbie asked that. (Sometimes more precisely phrased as: what is the MONEY cheat?)

And after hearing it the 5'th time in the same day, I'd go something like: "Why do you even need a cheat? I mean, really, it's not even possible to lose in The Sims." And indeed, there is no economic race, no world to be conquered, and so on. Why bother?

And the thing I was told, and it made sense, was: "Because different people play for different goals." While MY approach at the game was to maximize income, produce THE perfect layout, and generally play it like a strategy game, most people weren't playing it like that.

Some were actually just using it as a prop to make a story. Think: making a comic out of screenshots. (And there are a few thousands of those made with The Sims, so it's not just one loony's idea.) The money restriction was just some unneeded "challenge" for what they wanted to do. They didn't want that getting the props should be the challenge. Their challenge was getting the simulated people to do the right thing in the right place at the same time.

Others were using it as a house layout design program. They didn't want a challenge, they just wanted to make their ideal house in the game. Now. Compare layouts. Stuff like that. It's not a loony idea either. Reading some Maxis interviews revealed that the game was INTENDED to be usable and user-friendly in that role. More user friendly for Random J Gamer and family than a full blown CAD package anyway.

And so on.

Different people see different things in a game. What for you is boring, for someone else is just the way they want it. And what for you is a welcome challenge, for someone else might be just pointless frustration.

Mind you, I who was criticizing them for wanting cheats, was playing The Sims too in the first place. Not only that, but I've played it for far more hours than ANY other game. (And I'm playing games since '83.) Why? It had no challenge, as I've said. There weren't many ways to screw up at all, and you could sort of insure yourself against them from the very beginning. Dunno. It just had that "just five more minutes" feeling.

Look at the sales for The Sims. Even without counting the expansion pack sales, it's one of the games on the Top 10 Selling Games Ever list. Near the top of the list, in fact. It handily outsold any Civ incarnation. It also outsold Half-Life, even with the runaways success of CS.

Apparently there are a LOT of people who don't really need a challeng to enjoy a game. Or even don't want it at all. Go figure.

Back to Civ 3. Why would someone not want a challenge? For various reasons of their own. Probably because they don't see the same thing in the game as you do.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
Another minor annoyance is that if you choose a particular nation, you are permanently stuck as either male or female, which is surely a step back from Civ 2 which gave you the option - if I choose to be the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses or Narmer, I don't want to be continually addressed as "Noble Lady" thank you... anyway, that's minor.

Go to Civilizations in the game editor, and change the gender.

but more importantly with the resource system... in search of a nice relaxing game of crushing my enemies, I recently played at Chieftain level... the trouble was the only iron resource was halfway round the world, and then there was only one coal resource on my entire continent and it was next to a Babylonian city - the Babylonians were my most important ally, so war was not an option. Everyone else in the game was too primitive to realise the value of coal, and so I couldn't trade for it.

Then start another game, or better yet, use the editor to generate a map for you, and see if everything is spaced out, and if not, place some resources to even things out.

The upshot of it is that I wasted time on a lost cause. I was doomed from the start by the (permanently fixed in C3) random resource distribution.

On the natural resource tab in the editor, set Disappearence Prob to 0.

You must play to the formula at higher levels, and no matter what level you play at you're ultimately waiting to see if the virtual dice are kind to you.

Is that a bad thing? I say, the more the odds are stack against you, the better!

[dissent]

Dissent - Now that's just nasty. So the guy is having trouble on chieftain, and doesn't like the game? Why insult him?

I wouldn't call that insulting. It just sums up my argument against those who quit the game after failing to beat it the first, second, or third time. Civ3 is far different from its predecessors because it requires more actual strategy in order to win. If you don't have Coal, you have to go get some. If your opponent doesn't have Coal, you have a strong advantage over him, and vice versa. To beat Civ3 at a high difficulty level you must be concious of your culture rating, expand with settlers and your military, keep a strong economy, acquire all necessary resources, and keep your reputation polished. It is far from easy, but can be done. It just takes a little bit of time to learn how everything works now.

I firmly believe that Civ3 is not for everyone, as Civ2 was. It is for the die-hard strategy fans who welcome and enjoy a challenge. So I jokingly referred weaker players to games they might enjoy (win) easier.

[francoImpaler]

Originally posted by waasabi
It is very easy to out-produce, out-tech, out-culture AND out-military the AI _all in the same game_.

This is quite true if you are willing to go to war for resources. In the real world there are other ways to acquire resources. You can steal them, trade for them, extort them and the other civilizations do not need to know what they are. For instance, did the guys we first acquired rubber from know what we were using it for and how valuable it was?

I would like to see them add the ability to establish resource colonies in other civs terrirory. You could lease the right to a colony for say 50 turns with the understanding that it could not be inside a city border. If it later becomes essential to the AI they can decline to renew the lease. It would also provide a great staging area for invasion.

[yin26]

But what do you say to a guy like me who played 3.75 games (was winning the last one handily on Emperor) and won -- not counting my first game that I played very conservatively and lost -- from Day 1? Clearly, I found the game too easy. On top of that, it was boring me out of my mind. So not only was the game ZERO challenge, it was clunky, bug-ridden, amateurish and dull. How did I win so easily? I simply saw what the comp did: Settler Diarrhea, and started squatting myself. Worked like a messy charm.

Do you say the game is not for me because it is too hard for me? Surely not. Care to try another reason?

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by dissent
I firmly believe that Civ3 is not for everyone, as Civ2 was. It is for the die-hard strategy fans who welcome and enjoy a challenge. So I jokingly referred weaker players to games they might enjoy (win) easier.

Personally I guess I'd count as a die-hard turn-based strategy fan, on account of the sheer number of hours spent in games like Steel Panthers, Battle Isle, Panzer General, etc. Plus sequels. Plus variations thereof. (Like the Allied General and Phantasy General derivatives.)

Yet Civ 3 fails miserably in that aspect, too. The combat engine isn't anywhere near good enough for a turn based strategy. E.g., off the top of my head, the game engine in Panzer General had soft attack, hard attack, air attack, initiative, ground defense, air defense, bombardment, several levels of entrenchment, etc. And heck, that was one of the more abstract models, as strategy games go. I remember at least one game where they tracked even how many tanks of each type are in a unit. (E.g., you could have 12 tanks of one type, 6 of another type, and 20 of yet another type.) Civ 3 has... what? Two numbers that are very badly chosen for the vast majority of units?

And if you don't believe me, have a look at how each time someone complains about combat, there'll be someone to claim that "Civ 3 is not a war game" so it doesn't need a good model for war.

Frankly, it looks to me like at heart it's FAR more suited to catter to the casual sunday gamer than to the die-hard strategy fan. Only it failed to properly catter to the sunday gamers, either, by the looks of it.

[RichM]

The difficulty levels should be comparable to civ2. All the lower levels are too hard on this game. Nobody will convince me that the AI doesn't cheat on regent level. If you devote all your resources to expansion, when the expansion is over not only will your neigbors have expanded faster than you, but they will also have a fully developed military and be several techs ahead of you. If you retire you can see it all happening in the game summary.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Eliminator
They released the patch in fairly quick fashion.

Europa-Universalis II was released after Civ III (but also before it was completely finished).

Paradox released EU II's first patch before Firaxis did. Paradox has already completed the 2nd patch for EU II and is waiting on their publisher to put in the copy protection to release it. Paradox responds quite a bit more frequently to questions on their fora (but then it's on their site).

I like the early and middle parts of Civ III. I like having to use combined arms to take cities. I like that resource stragetgy is now part of the game. But the game gets unplayable for me towards the late part of the game. I spend vastly more time waiting for my turn than playing my turn. I've been reading, organizing my room, cooking, watching tv, taking showers, etc. waiting for my turn. Screw it.

I will wait 'till the game is playable before I buy it. Glad I tried it before wasting my money.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by RichM
The difficulty levels should be comparable to civ2. All the lower levels are too hard on this game. Nobody will convince me that the AI doesn't cheat on regent level. If you devote all your resources to expansion, when the expansion is over not only will your neigbors have expanded faster than you, but they will also have a fully developed military and be several techs ahead of you. If you retire you can see it all happening in the game summary.

You know, even on Monarch, I am able to keep up or out expand the AI, keep up or out research the AI, and always out culture the AI. I wonder why your game cheats and mine doesn't?

I might drop behind here and there but there's no reason beyond the fact the AI makes sacrifices that I don't which is why I eventually outclass it in all the categories. Your skill is insufficient - nothing more complicated than that explains your failure at the lower levels. I couldn't win at regent to save my live for almost two weeks after I got the game but instead of deciding it must be the cheating AI I tried a novel concept: figure out the balance of growth/expansion/improvement to win.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Moraelin


Personally I guess I'd count as a die-hard turn-based strategy fan, on account of the sheer number of hours spent in games like Steel Panthers, Battle Isle, Panzer General, etc. Plus sequels. Plus variations thereof. (Like the Allied General and Phantasy General derivatives.)

Yet Civ 3 fails miserably in that aspect, too. The combat engine isn't anywhere near good enough for a turn based strategy.

You're right. Civ3 is a lousy turn based wargame when stacked up against Steel Panthers, TOAW, and even the more-abstract war games like Panzer General.

But its not just a wargame. None of those games you mention (well, not sure about Battle Isle, since I've never played it) have diplomacy, production, empire building, etc etc.

Civ3 isn't a wargame -- its an empire building game that includes war. Compare it against, say, EU. EU has how many types of units?

Fun games all, but they're all different.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by Arrian
Dissent - Now that's just nasty. So the guy is having trouble on chieftain, and doesn't like the game? Why insult him?

- a perplexed Arrian

I wasn't "having trouble" playing at Chieftain ... I'd have won the game anyway, but it was just frustrating that the resource randomness had such a gross effect on things, making it not the cakewalk of a game I'd been in the mood for. It could have worked the other way - I could have been after a challenge at a higher level only to discover I owned all the world's coal and saltpetre, thereby making my victory a bit hollow.

[cutlerd]

The main complaint of many people seems to be lack of iron. I personally enjoy a challenge, and lack of iron in ancient times does not mean the end of the game for me....it merely means an ancient period where I will be at war and will expand my initial empire through conquest as opposed to settlers.

If you really despise lack of iron, just play one of the empires that does not need iron early on. India and Iroquois come to mind. The Iroquois horsemen can take on an iron civ with swordsmen and beat them raw. India gets its war elephants which can get you all the way to Cavalry.

I happen to think the resource system is probably one of the top 4 things in the game.

Devin

[Evil_Eric_4]

For those of you that think there arent enough resources heres a sollution---
Edit the standard map size to enable 16 civs.
That means AT LEAST 16 of each resource.
Other advantages include less wait time between turns than on a large or huge map-and theres always a weak civ nearby to conquer early on to give you a jump start.
Everyone starts with 4 to 8 cities and then the fun begins.

I have never had a resource problem at this setting and the games are far more interesting ie. more wars

In my current game(Std.random map-contenents-4bil-temp-16 civs,as french Monarch level)I have 4 coal,2rubber,and 3 oil in my territory.It is a very competitive game-Only 10 civs are left and 2 more are on the way out(I only conquered 2 civs)Im in first place with the greeks and egyptians very close behind and gaining.
Im currently researching radio and the greeks are already in the modern era.The end game will be very interesting with the three superpowers battling for world dominance.The Greeks are actually my allies right now but I guess that will soon change

[Disk Killer]

Ok, I swear I'm not out to make anyone look bad/feel bad but....

I've been going with my girlfriend for a year now, and introduced her to computer gaming. Her first game was Tropico, her second was Railroad Tycoon II, and her third is Civ3.

She did really well at Tropico, I should add. She has never played any other Civ games or SMAC.

Her first game was a struggle, though she had watched me play... she had disease strike her capital while she only had 2 cities, it was in the middle of jungle, and I thought she was finished from the start....

She won that game when time ran out in 2050, I was honestly shocked... I had lost my first game of Civ badly back in 1991.

She has played 6 games now (all chieftain) and is getting better and better...and won all 6.

I don't see how experienced strategy gamers can be losing at chieftain. My first game was at chieftain, I didn't get coal at all, and won cultural victory in 1808 with my scientists researching atomic energy. You just have to expand quickly, you can't depend on conquest to advance yourself too far, I think this is the trap old Civ2 players are falling in.

I found that game way easy and fun because I did what I felt like. My girlfriend is starting to feel the sameway, and will probably move up to Warlord for the challenge.

She is the proto-typical Sunday gamer, with very little experience. Smart as heck though, which helps.