The lack of "strategic depth" in Civ3

[Tarquelne]

All the "Civ3 isn't as strategically deep as Civ2" statements that I remember seeing have alluded to the fewer options avialable in Civ3. Civ3 certainly has fewer units, fewer governments, fewer Advances. But I don't see how that translates into less strategic depth.

Does anyone who thinks that Civ3 isn't as "deep" as Civ2 object to the statement "Chess isn't as strategically deep as Civ2."?

I think that Civ3 is "deeper" simply because the AI is better - esp. the trading AI. (I believe the AI to be better because I, even after getting used to Civ3, find the game more difficult than Civ2, amd so does my friend. (Yes, I hane one.)) And the AI is so much better, I'm sure, because the game has fewer options. (Fewer chances for the AI to make a boneheaded decision, if nothing else.) But why the AI is better is beside the point.... Because the AI is better I have to take far more care when I make a decision, and that "more care" = "more strategic depth."

I also think that too many of the Civ2 options were either "no brainers" or simply pointless. (Well, maybe not "pointless", but rather "of little consequence.") There were lots of units sure, but I only used a handfull of the "best" ones. There were more improvements, but I didn't face any more difficult/interesting decisions with which one to build next than I do with Civ3. Sorry, I did face _more_ decisions, yes, but they weren't more difficult or interesting. For me "More toys to choose from" doesn't give a game "more depth."

BTW, I can imagine someone persuasively arguing that Civ3 isn't as much _fun_ as Civ2 because it has fewer tech, etc, etc...

[KoenigMkII]

This post has been edited, with new introduction paragraphs at the top of the post, and some new sub. headings have been added. I hope its a bit clearer now.

For me, "Strategic depth" in a Civ game is a large variety of different strategies to achieve the two main goals:-

(a) Expansion: i.e. increase the number of cities, civilain and military units, and increase your civ's territorial space.

(b) Development: i.e. increase the sophistication and tech. level of cities, civilian and military units, and develop the terrain tiles you allready possess.

Tedium is for me, is the 180 degree opposite of "Strategic depth" in the context of a civ game. So substitute "lack of strategic depth" for the word tedium below, and I think you can then see what I was getting at. I have started with Civ II because I think it helps to understand the (IMHO) problems of Civ III.

One of the main reasons for late game tedium in Civ II was that the tech tree could be "blown away" too early on the biggest map sizes.

This meens there is no time to use the different generations of military units. Your invasion units go obsolete in transit to the target. Then its future tech time (tedious)

-----------------
Civ III seems to have solved the problem of the tech tree being consumed too quickly, yes, but Firaxis have done it with:-

1/ [Huge map] a 32 city limit before horrible corruption

2/ short distance before intense corruption effect - this stops your civ growing and becoming too high tech.

3/ The 4 turn minimium time to research a tech.

4/ Republic & Democracy, which produce the most tech per city, are horrbly crippled by the corruption and DEFENSIVE WAR-war weariness.

The beginning and middle of the game are great fun, but you can't really expand properly in the end game. Sure you can raise your AI neighbor's cities but you get stuck in monarchy or communism in the process.

IMHO only method 3/ actually helps. The other cures have brought horrible side effects which tend to ruin the end game.

-----------------
Ko's ideas to increase strategic depth:

If more city anti-corruption improvements were available it would be much better. Allows more expansion.

If there were more levels of different units (with more prerequisite techs), then that would also help. Especially tech tree branches that dont necessarily contain further tech boosting effects, but more warlike benefits.

Then you have to choose, guns or butter.

Its also O.K. to have tech tree branches that are dead ends. Some forms of tech can only be pushed so far in refinement before they are fundamentally replaced.

------------------------
Firaxis is limited in implementing some of the ideas above because:

1/ Unfortunately as each separate military unit has to have a graphic, an animation, a sound library etc. it meens there is only so much time and money a commercial game developer will expend.

2/ Increased features give strategic depth to the game, But the AI programming takes more and more time each time you add a parameter to the game.

After that time is up the bean-counters say, stop it, hurry up and ship the game we need $'s to keep the company afloat!

In fact the air units and subs/naval units are barely mock ups of what they should be. Thats time pressure for you.

------------------------
Ko's solution/pipe dream (delete as applicable):

So somehow its up to the Fans to come up with a Mod pack for Civ III that becomes the defacto last patch for the game. IF that mod can run in a MP version the AI limits are removed [assuming no AI players]

Fixaxis, like every other company in the gaming industry will never be able to do it all that on its own - time will run out and they will have to shift to the next game.

P.S. I enjoy the graphics and animations too- so I am part of the problem as well. :-( But I would pay more for a MP version if it worked with a final player designed mod pack. :-)

The LWC mod looks good so far, I am up to the year 1400 with a huge map and 12 starting Civs. Read the readme if you play the LWC mod - more units, improvements are in, but the Civilopedia feature is not brought fully up to date. The Pryamids have a different effect too.

[Tarquelne]

KoeningMkII: Maybe I should have explained what I think "strategic depth" means. I think a game has "strategic depth" when it has plenty of difficult decisions to be made, or its a challenge to properly analyze. Tedium isn't really a factor - though I can see there related (A game might have lots of difficult decisions, but if they're boring decisions the game is tedious). I'd like to discuss what you wrote, but not in this thread, since, unless I missed your point, your (interesting) post isn't really directly related to the question of "strategic depth" in Civ3. How about editing your post and starting a new thread? Hmm.... Maybe I'll edit my post and start a new thread if you don't.

[Jaybe]

Koenig, I prefer to play on huge maps. I disagree with your complaint about the small number of cities allowed before hitting the corruption threshold
-- because I changed them in the Editor (multiplied them by 1.5)

I am somewhat awed by the wonderful effects of this modification, though I've only about 30 cities yet (some reasonable production across the sea, even).

Back on topic, I like the strategic depth of civ3. It is only in the abstraction in combat that I have any qualms, and that is mainly that one strong unit cannot destroy two weak units (e.g., a battleship vs. two transports; same position with land units).

[Hrnac]

FYI, If I counted correctly, Civ 2 has 51 units and Civ 3 has 66 units.

I agree with your view Tarquelne in that with the addition of Strategic Resources that Civ 3 has as much or more "Strategic Depth" than Civ 2. In fact my only real gripe about the game (other than the unfinished editor) is the lack of terrain improvements. I would have liked to seen farms, modern roads, bridges and naval bases added to the current mix.

I also hope that Firaxis lifts the 8 strategic resource limit. This alone could open up huge possibilites if more items could be tied to different resources. For example if you made the acqueduct dependent on stone (and you didn't have any), then the thought of not having your cities grow beyond size 6 would cause one to either trade like mad for stone or have a very good reason to fight for it. These kinds of "tough" decisions are what the game needs. Make the player really have to decide between "guns or butter". That is what strategy gaming is all about.

-Hrnac

[Aqualung]

Good idea, I'll try this on my next game:

Gold (strategic resource, requires Currency)

Marketplace (requires Gold)

And since Bank requires Marketplace...

I already have Gold as the "default money resource". In case you didn't know, if you enter a goody-hut and get money, the default money resource appears on that square. The default is nothing, so you don't see anything happen. But you can set it to any resource, even Uranium. You probably won't see the Uranium for several thousand years, though.

[DrFell]

'Civ3 certainly has fewer units, fewer governments, fewer Advances. But I don't see how that translates into less strategic depth.'

It doesn't. It's just that other things are put in to limit the number of choices a player has, such as the severe limit on the tech tree. Now you can't create a navy specialised civ, for example, or a war civ. So if you start on an island or you need to take out a more advanced civ to come back into the game you are seriously handicapped. What makes for more strategy is an increased number of choices in the game, which is why chess is so great. You can do almost anything within a few turns.

'I think that Civ3 is "deeper" simply because the AI is better - esp. the trading AI.'

That means nothing in mp though, which is where the real strategy is. Plus the amount of AI cheating on the higher levels severely limits what you can do. I've found (and so have many others) that the best way by far is to take out a nearby civ and intimidate them into giving you all their techs. That, every single game, fun for a short time but gets tedious.
'There were lots of units sure, but I only used a handfull of the "best" ones.'

Almost all of them were useful in the right circumstances. Explorers for example, can be used in mp as an offensive tactic.

[Ironikinit]

You really can't do "almost anything within a few turns" in chess, unless by "almost anything" you mean make a few moves. Chess isn't much for stunning upsets and come from behind victories.

The limits in Civ 3 that you describe are actually nods to realism. No civilization in history charged ahead monomaniacally to develop military technology at the exclusion of all other knowledge. The ages which offend you also help limit exploitation.

I don't know if you noticed, DrFell, but the discussion is of single player. Multiplayer Civ 3 doesn't exist at this time. I found your argument confusing when you discounted the importance of the vastly improved AI and then complained that it limited your options in quick succession. Does it matter or not? If so, won't a human player also attempt to limit your options, and if good, do a better job of it than the AI? If not... Well, duh, obviously it matters, there isn't any multiplayer!

As for AI "cheating", you could play at a level where it does not, or "cheats" in your favor. The higher levels are supposed to be hard, that's the idea. You could also allow yourself greater flexibility in your strategy by playing on an easier if you find you can only win one way on harder levels. Please post a saved game from your most recent deity level victory so that we can discuss it and the possibility of different strategies.

Your final argument is not only conjectural (due to Civ 3 not having MP as yet), but flies in the face of my experience with Civ 2. People tended to build many units of one type for their strike forces. In Civ 3 at least people report some use of combined arms, even those who are heavily dependent on ancient era pop rush type exploits.

[Libertarian]

Chess isn't much for stunning upsets and come from behind victories.

Nonsense.

When fifteen-year-old Bobby Fischer beat Grandmaster Donald Byrne in the Game of the Century, it was one of innumerable stunning upsets. Likewise, when I won our state's open championship, thanks to my opponent's lapse of judgment in a game wherein I was hopelessly behind in material, it was one of countless documented come-from-behind victories in chess.

[DrFell]

'You really can't do "almost anything within a few turns" in chess, unless by "almost anything" you mean make a few moves. Chess isn't much for stunning upsets and come from behind victories.'

Yes that's what I mean. Within a few turns you can move any piece, thus you have hundreds of options which makes for great strategy.

'The limits in Civ 3 that you describe are actually nods to realism. No civilization in history charged ahead monomaniacally to develop military technology at the exclusion of all other knowledge. The ages which offend you also help limit exploitation.'

What about naval technology though? Also the Mongols had very advanced cavalry units without developing much in other areas. The native Americans had gunpowder (at least used it) without having many other technologies. I could probably think of better example given the time.

'importance of the vastly improved AI and then complained that it limited your options in quick succession. '

Thing is, the AI isn't that much better, it just cheats a hell of a lot better. The AI just moronically pumps out settlers and covers even worthelss terrain with cities, which seems to be why they get resources (purely by chance). Beating deity level isn't really that difficult, I quit a lot of games because even early on, it becomes obvious that it's going to be a walkover for me (not that I win every deity game of course). Which is why I do to some degree enjoy the early disadvantages, it gives you something to fight for, but when the solution is always the same, it becomes a bit tedious. There were more solutions in Civ2 (WLTxD, war, ICS).

'As for AI "cheating", you could play at a level where it does not, or "cheats" in your favor. The higher levels are supposed to be hard, that's the idea.'

Naah, I prefer no cheating at all, but it makes the game a bit too easy. Thing is, they're not so difficult if you follow the set pattern, the number of units the AI gets for free early on is what allows them to take me out sometimes, early on.

'You could also allow yourself greater flexibility in your strategy by playing on an easier if you find you can only win one way on harder levels.'

For practising multiplay potential strategies, I do. It's not too much of a challenge.

'Please post a saved game from your most recent deity level victory so that we can discuss it and the possibility of different strategies.'

I don't have many finished games, when the result seems inevitable I generally begin to lose interest, and start afresh.

'People tended to build many units of one type for their strike forces.'

Not I, bringing along defense is important, sure, sometimes you build a ton of knights to take out your opponent, but you could also build a ton of catapults, etc. I find catapults and slow units next to useless in civ3 (I usually have painfully large losses when I try swordsmen rushes).

'In Civ 3 at least people report some use of combined arms, even those who are heavily dependent on ancient era pop rush type exploits.'

I don't, I rush plenty horsemen/war chariots/immortals, and go and conquer. Not really so entertaining. (By the way my last post was cut off as my keyboard stopped working, had to restart the pc )

[Ironikinit]

DrFell, if all it takes to make great strategy is the option to move pieces, than Civ 3 is many times greater than chess. I don't think that, and I know that you don't, because you dislike Civ 3. Which reminds me, why are you on a Civ 3 fan forum again?

Its unfortunately impossible in the Civ series to reflect primitive civilizations aquiring advanced weapons, as in your example of Native Americans and firearms. Civs need to have all prerequisite techs before doing so. It's a shortcoming, I suppose.

However, the ages of the tech tree are realistic limits upon advancement. No matter how the tech tree is devised without the ages (excluding using a single tech that served as a chokepoint which would amount to the same thing as the age system), it would be possible to advance in an unrealistic and exploitative manner.

As it is, it is quite possible to create a civilization that is quite militant in the game. All one has to do is pick a civ with the MilCSA and focus on developing military structures, technologies, and wonders. Likewise, it is possible to make a distinctly scientific or religious culture. It would be nice to further customize our civs. As it is now I'm playing the vanilla version, but it's just a matter of time before I start checking out mods and messing with the editor.

I find it hard to believe that you honestly can't appreciate how much better the AI is. Name a game that has better AI in this genre. Name a game in this genre where the AI does not receive bonuses. I can tell you one thing, the answer isn't Civ 2.

The saved game doesn't have to be anything special, just from your most recent victory on deity, that's all. I'd like to have a look at it, and we can talk about it. I'm sure it will be illuminating. It will give me a chance to see your unit balance, for example.

[DrFell]

'DrFell, if all it takes to make great strategy is the option to move pieces, than Civ 3 is many times greater than chess.'

Moving a piece is very important in chess. A couple wrong moves and you can easily lose. The analogue in civ would be choosing a tech path to go down or weather to attack a civ or not. Choose the wrong one and you can set yourself back a long way.

'Which reminds me, why are you on a Civ 3 fan forum again?'

I play the game, though less often than I did before, I'm hoping a few things will be fixed or changed in the MP version (to make it suitable for multiplay at all).

'Its unfortunately impossible in the Civ series to reflect primitive civilizations aquiring advanced weapons, as in your example of Native Americans and firearms. Civs need to have all prerequisite techs before doing so. It's a shortcoming, I suppose.'

However it was possible in Civ2 (you could get advanced tech from trade or conquest). Even though sometimes it produced ridiculous results (can build a tank, but can't build cars) I'm not sure why they made it impossible in 3.

'However, the ages of the tech tree are realistic limits upon advancement.'

Not neccessarily, some of the techs required to get to a new age are completely unrelated to the techs that follow on in the next age. Why should I not be able to research monotheism just because I don't have currency?

'As it is, it is quite possible to create a civilization that is quite militant in the game. All one has to do is pick a civ with the MilCSA and focus on developing military structures, technologies, and wonders. Likewise, it is possible to make a distinctly scientific or religious culture.'

But that's largely affected by the civ you choose at the start. I was thinking more of in-game flexibility.

'but it's just a matter of time before I start checking out mods and messing with the editor.'

Shame civ3 doesn't support real scenarios - they're the only thing that kept me playing SP civ2.

'I find it hard to believe that you honestly can't appreciate how much better the AI is. Name a game that has better AI in this genre. Name a game in this genre where the AI does not receive bonuses. I can tell you one thing, the answer isn't Civ 2.'

The AI is better, but it's not smart.

[Ironikinit]

I don't see how your position that player decisions in Civ 3 having great impact supports your earlier position that it lacks strategic depth.

I don't remember being able to get techs that you didn't already have the requirements for in Civ 1 or 2. I don't remember building cars, either.

You can't get monotheism before currency for reasons of play balance. Not everything in the game requires a rationale, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to make a logical argument that monotheism didn't occur in cultures that lacked exposure to currency, or some sort of connection between the two. It doesn't matter if there is a connection or not. The reason why the age model is in place should be obvious.

As for in game flexibility in terms of customized cultures, I've played games where my militaristic civ turned ended up a builder and where my builder fought a lot of wars and therefore I stressed military advances and wonders. These results were by design, at least in a couple cases.

Yes, it's a shame there aren't scenarios for Civ 3. I've heard good things about the mods. Have you checked them out?

I take it you cannot think of a game in the genre that has better AI than Civ 3. That's what I expected. AI cannot be truly intelligent, BTW, it's just an expression. It can, however, be programmed intelligently, as it is in Civ 3.

I'm still looking forward to seeing one of your saved games. Don't be modest. Just zip up any ol' crushing defeat you've delivered to the AI on deity and pop it up here. I'll learn a lot, I'm sure.

[Libertarian]

A prerequisite to learning — even just a little — is an open mind, I'm afraid.

[macaskil]

Hmmm. to paraphrase an earlier post:-

1. The AI cheats

2. I beat it easily anyway

So, what's the problem? Stop playing and do something else!

If the AI could win without "cheating" then it would be as intelligent as a Human Being. If Firaxis could develop the AI to do this they wouldn't be wasting their time with computer games - they'd probably be helping the Pentagon develop a smart weapon to zap Bin Laden.

Personally, I haven't beaten the AI yet except at chieftain. When I do win at deity I will throw the game in the bin - but I don't expect this to happen for a while. Which means I'm less intelligent than a collection of zeros and ones - a terrifying thought. I'm playing CTP2 (just for a bit of variety) and the AI there is sub-moronic.

Let me spell it out - the "AI" is a computer program designed to simulate human behaviour in a very simplistic way by following a set of rules. That's all.

[Libertarian]

The AI is the most superior attribute of the game. Clumsy design, and not a deficient AI, is the cause of the shallow strategy paradigm in Civ3.

[Zoid]

The strategic depth in Civ3 is staggering, you can choose TWO ways. Either you peacefully expand until the corruption breaks you OR you can go on the warpath and conquer the world, but then you have to raze all the cities that doesn´t lie in the direct vicinity of you palace or forbidden palace. Which on a huge map is about 80% of the cities.

The strategic depth in this is actually mindnumbing and I stand in awe of the braniacs at Firaxis who have devised this strategy extravaganza.

[Libertarian]

Well said, Kamrat. Perhaps a golf clap is in order.

[Zoid]

Well, thank you *takes a bow*

Welcome back BTW

[DrFell]

'I don't see how your position that player decisions in Civ 3 having great impact supports your earlier position that it lacks strategic depth.'

I don't see how it affects it in any way. Thing is in civ3 you don't really choose what techs to research. On deity you take them off the AI until you can build up to a size where you can research yourself, and even then you have to trade techs. Sure you can go off down a tech path, but as the longest tech paths are only a 4 or 5 techs it really doesn't change much, and the AI will catch up rapidly anyway.

'I don't remember being able to get techs that you didn't already have the requirements for in Civ 1 or 2. I don't remember building cars, either.'

Automobile, a prequisite of mobile warfare, you see the effect in game by increased population pollution. You can acquire techs you don't have the prequisites for trust me.

'The reason why the age model is in place should be obvious.'

It is, to cripple the human. You can't seriously say that stopping a human from having free choice of techs is a great idea. Say you're trapped on an island with sea squares all around. Three choices, go for lighthouse, risk losing lots of ships, or go for navigation - wait, you can't go straight for navigation in civ3! No, you have to research a LOT of unnecessary technology. In civ2 you could even go for seafaring and reduce the chance of losing your triremes.

'As for in game flexibility in terms of customized cultures'

The limitations in the tech tree hurt that a lot. You should see some of the brilliantly specialised strategies and the civs they produce in MP. For example, a completely naval civ, a completely war orientated civ, or a completely tech/cash orientated civ. You can't do that in civ3.

'Yes, it's a shame there aren't scenarios for Civ 3. I've heard good things about the mods. Have you checked them out?'

I don't really like playing with mods, I prefer to keep the game as it came from the box for MP purposes (unless when MP comes out a particular mod becomes standard).

'I take it you cannot think of a game in the genre that has better AI than Civ 3. That's what I expected. AI cannot be truly intelligent, BTW, it's just an expression. It can, however, be programmed intelligently, as it is in Civ 3.'

I never said there was better AI in any similar games. Just because something is the best, doesn't neccessarily mean it's perfect. Anyway, I can however think of a natural intelligence that happens to play civ2, and which is better than any AI.

'I'm still looking forward to seeing one of your saved games. Don't be modest. Just zip up any ol' crushing defeat you've delivered to the AI on deity and pop it up here. I'll learn a lot, I'm sure.'

I can't send you a save now, I'm at uni. These aren't my PCs When I get home (Friday or Saturday) I'll post one.

[Tarquelne]

"The strategic depth in Civ3 is staggering, you can choose TWO ways. Either you peacefully expand until the corruption breaks you OR you can go on the warpath and conquer the world"

And the strategic depth in chess is just as bad! You can only win by eliminating many pieces or checkmating your opponent outright! Geesh, what an overblow rep that game has.

My point is that just because you can formulate the basic paths to victory in Civ3 as only "two ways" doesn't mean there isn't (or is) much strategic depth. What matters is all those decisions along the way.

Ironikinit: Be fair - Dr. Fell should only have to post a Deity game in which he's clearly winning. I've only actually finished one game myself - I quit too when I'm certain I'll win.

DrFell: Your skill at the game isn't really relevent to the strategic depth in Civ3. Can we agree that chess has lots of strategic depth? OK, now, if you were so good at chess that no one could give you a challenging game, would that cause you to change your answer?

"It's just that other things are put in to limit the number of choices a player has, such as the severe limit on the tech tree."

Fewer choices doesn't necessarily mean less strategic depth. It just means that the remaining choices need to "work harder." Be more interesting or difficult.

Do you find Civ2 to be equally or more difficult than Civ3?

Lib: "Clumsy design, and not a deficient AI, is the cause of the shallow strategy paradigm in Civ3."

How about fleshing that argument out a little bit?

[DrFell]

'Your skill at the game isn't really relevent to the strategic depth in Civ3. Can we agree that chess has lots of strategic depth? OK, now, if you were so good at chess that no one could give you a challenging game, would that cause you to change your answer? '

I was just making the point that the AI really isn't that good, at least compared to a human. Yeah chess is a good game with strategic depth, and no I'm a long way from being the greatest in the world . Even if it was easy it would still be a great game - but that's one of my points, a great AI doesn't equate to great strategy. Great strategy is when you have to think hard over all the many choices left open to you in the game. The fewer choices, the less options you have to consider.

'Do you find Civ2 to be equally or more difficult than Civ3?'

Easier, as I'm used to playing humans. It was a challenge for awhile though. Comparing the AIs, 3 is better, but difficulty doesn't neccessarily equate to strategy. Maybe a better word for what I'm thinking of is diversity.

[Libertarian]

How about fleshing that argument out a little bit?

Sure. Consider Brian Reynold's comments on what makes for great strategy gaming, found here.

Fallen and I Can't Get Up

The game is so formulaic that once you have fallen behind by a substantial margin, you have no hope of catching up. There are no beautiful save-tactics like there are in chess, where you can find yourself hopelessly out-manned only to win thanks to a fortuitous end-game positional quirk that you've managed to nurse while you hoped for victory.

The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer

Op. cit.

Uninteresting/Linear Decisions

This one is the bane of Civ3's design, in my opinion. Early on, the game is interesting as you make fundamentally critical decisions between whether to build a library or a pikeman with scarce available resources and time. Toward the end, decision making devolves into which eight of your hundred workers you will send — one at a time! — to clean a mountain's pollution. Or how best to time dismissing the Domestic Nag (while still trying to read the fly-by critcal messages) as she asks you to build a stupid hospital in every city — one at a time! — including the one that is two turns from finishing its wonder.

The turns begin to drone on with such boring meaninglessness, that even Ironikinit admits to abandoning advanced games and starting over.

Micromanagement

Speaking of a hundred workers...

Nothing Happening

Once corruption has crippled your empire-building efforts, you yearn for more exciting activities like watching paint dry.

Bang, You're Dead

I'll never again activate the UN victory.

Bang Your Head

Make a generous offer in diplomacy. Be refused. Increase the generosity. Be despised and prepare for war.

[Arrian]

Great link, Lib. While I still play and enjoy Civ III quite a bit, I must admit that I wish B.R. had stuck around for this one. I would like to have the game he would have made.

By the way, the "fallen and can't get up" and "rich get richer" problems have always been problems of the Civ series, including Civ II, which B.R. created. A large part of that, I think, has to do with the Wonders (once you get ahead, you nab all of the wonders, or most of 'em, and they do Wonderful things for your empire). In Civ III, there is also the advantage of seeing resources first. The tech caps and cheaper tech if others have got it, I think, were meant to counter the "rich get richer/fallen can't get up" problems, but I don't think that was sucessful. So 4 turns is the max... you can still make tons of money and use that to increase your advantage. I think it's just a really difficult thing to balance properly.

-Arrian

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by DrFell
I was just making the point that the AI really isn't that good, at least compared to a human.

Oh, OK. I certainly agree with that.

Great strategy is when you have to think hard over all the many choices left open to you in the game. The fewer choices, the less options you have to consider.

I agree. But I think that's where the quality/difficulty of the choices starts to matter. I think Civ3 is "deeper" than Civ2 because of the "quality" of the choices, not the number. I think Civ3 still has enough choices to be "many." Not "Shall I exapand as fast as possible" or "Shall I try to win with 2 cities." sure. But there are plenty of "Where _exactly_ shall I expand?" types of decisions.

Comparing the AIs, 3 is better, but difficulty doesn't neccessarily equate to strategy.

Sure... Can we agree that "depth" is "Many difficult decisions."?
We seem to agree that the Civ3's AI is better, so the issue then because whether or not Civ3 has enough decisions to be "many."

Maybe a better word for what I'm thinking of is diversity.

What do you mean?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
If more city anti-corruption improvements were available it would be much better.

You would think temples and cathedrals would help reduce corruption, at least with religious civs.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Sure. Consider Brian Reynold's comments on what makes for great strategy gaming, found here.

Fallen and I Can't Get Up

The game is so formulaic that once you have fallen behind by a substantial margin, you have no hope of catching up.

Shouldn't there be a big "In my experience" tacked on at the beginning of that statement. That's not what I've seen _AT ALL_. My best games (most fun) by far are the ones where I have to struggle to catch up, and don't do so untill the Industrial or even Modern Era.

And I've definetly been behind by a "substantial" margin - over 1/2 an Age, I'd estimate.

There are no beautiful save-tactics like there are in chess, where you can find yourself hopelessly out-manned only to win thanks to a fortuitous end-game positional quirk that you've managed to nurse while you hoped for victory.

4 words: Spaceship Victory. Diplomatic Victory.

The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer

Op. cit.

Ditto...

Uninteresting/Linear Decisions

The turns begin to drone on with such boring meaninglessness, that even Ironikinit admits to abandoning advanced games and starting over.

My position is: If the game is tedius it's because it's not challenging. If it isn't challenging you've effectively won. Quit and start a new game.

Micromanagement

Speaking of a hundred workers...

How about speaking of strategic depth?

Nothing Happening

Once corruption has crippled your empire-building efforts, you yearn for more exciting activities like watching paint dry.

Which game are you playing? I've never been crippled by corruption.

Bang, You're Dead

I'll never again activate the UN victory.

So much for last minute positional saves, eh?
HELLO!

Bang Your Head

Make a generous offer in diplomacy. Be refused. Increase the generosity. Be despised and prepare for war.

What's the title of the thread.... "strategic depth." OK, just checking....

[Ironikinit]

Good ol' Tarq. Well argued and not a bit over the top. (Hey, if other posters can shamelessly lick Yin and Lib's boots, I can hand out some praise now and then.)

Y'all made a fuss about Lib's post so I took a look and the link really is good. You can see where Civ 3 tried to address the problems inherited from Civ 2, almost as if using Reynold's criteria as a checklist.

IMO, it makes a stronger effort on "the poor get richer" than Civ 2 did, notably how tech devalues so drastically over time.

Also, while I do sometimes romp a bit far ahead in the late game, lose interest and quit, I almost always start out a good deal behind. In fact, if I don't I know I'm probably going to be in for a dull game and eventually restart. It happens pretty rarely, tho, and it's nice to be able to be ahead in the ancient and medieval periods for a change, so I'll prob play a while.

[Libertarian]

Shouldn't there be a big "In my experience" tacked on at the beginning of that statement. That's not what I've seen _AT ALL_. My best games (most fun) by far are the ones where I have to struggle to catch up, and don't do so untill the Industrial or even Modern Era.

I think you misunderstand Brian's point. He isn't talking about that sort of "catching up". You're merely confirming the existence of the formula.

4 words: Spaceship Victory. Diplomatic Victory.

[...incredulous stare...]

You've equated these with pushing home a strategically earned passed pawn in an otherwise lost chess ending? A better analogy would be a random pawn changing magically into a queen and issuing checkmate of its own volition when both players least expect it.

My position is: If the game is tedius it's because it's not challenging. If it isn't challenging you've effectively won. Quit and start a new game.

I suppose. Thankfully, Olympic and professional level sports have not adopted your position.

"Coach, I'm tired and bored."

"No problem. Just rest a spell and start over."

How about speaking of strategic depth?

I think that dealing with a hundred individual workers in an interface that can move them one at a time speaks volumes about the strategic depth: namely, that it's missing.

Which game are you playing? I've never been crippled by corruption.

[...shrug...]

I'm playing the game where building a Forbidden Palace takes 200 turns. What game are you playing?

So much for last minute positional saves, eh?
HELLO!

The UN victory? I don't think the strategic equivalent of a magic spell is at all analogous to the careful nurturing of a tiny and ostensibly innocuous positional advantage in chess.

What's the title of the thread.... "strategic depth." OK, just checking....

Civ3 lacks strategic depth once the early game is finished. That's what I've been explaining in some detail.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
And the strategic depth in chess is just as bad! You can only win by eliminating many pieces or checkmating your opponent outright! Geesh, what an overblow rep that game has.

Yeah, I always thought that also. Damn that chess lobby!

My point is that just because you can formulate the basic paths to victory in Civ3 as only "two ways" doesn't mean there isn't (or is) much strategic depth. What matters is all those decisions along the way.

You mean like find natural resources-build cities-build improvements-expand your culture rating OR find natural resources-build cities-build military units-kick some AI ass? Or is there some hidden aspect of Civ3 strategy that I´m missing?