Civ3 still has gameplay & diplomacy flaws.

[Catt]

Originally posted by David Murray


But I still think that a lot of the game comes down to luck. Other than starting position, things such as resources, outcomes of barbarian villages, combat results (esp. when fighting units with similar stats), proximity of other civs, etc can't be determined by skill.

But they can all be heavily influenced by skill, and for the very best players (of which I am not included), getting stuck with the worst variables of all these factors can all be overcome through skill and tactics.

The ability to most efficiently use the available terrain is of huge importance to your eventual success - knowing how to employ your worker and your citizens is a somewhat mundane (to some) learning process, but essential.

Your skill at effective expansion (peacefully and militarily)and controlling a variety of terrain types is one of the most important skills in regards to resource acquisition; your diplomatic skills and ability to trade for them are another.

Barbarians and combat require foresight, and require you to use your foresight wisely. As the boy scouts say - be prepared (and oftentimes be prepared for the worst.)

How you deal with an aggressive neighbor who starts very close to you is a measure of your player skills as well - diplomacy, trade, and military prowess all play a role.

But I don't feel that any amount of strategy will make up for some of the parts of Civ3 which are ostensibly unduly influenced by luck and randomness.

You say you've spent time in the strategy forum - just in case you missed the thread, check out how an amazingly skilled player overcomes an extraordinarily daunting start on Diety, and ulitmately plays the game out to a win. Click HERE.

Catt

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Catt

Click HERE.

Catt

This looks interesting! I will read it thoroughly and see if my "opinions" need to be reevaluated.

[YC4B4U]

With regard to the AI cheating and complaints about diplomacy - all I can say is "I can't wait for multiplayer!" Because humans don't play with set rules like the computer does.

With a computer you just have to figure the rules or their patterns - with a human they may attack you just because you team colour is pink!

P.S. It still took me a while to figure out that I needed a large standing army at all times so the computer didn't pick on me...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by David Murray
...combat results (esp. when fighting units with similar stats) ... can't be determined by skill

In Civ3, combat results often seem utterly random.

David,

the combat results (especially between units with similar stats) are MEANT to have utterly random results. The trick is to avoid engaging in such fights as much as possible. What you always need is attack with a high-attack unit and defend with a high-defense unit, so as you twist the odds in your favour (the probability count works in Civ3 on the game-wide scale, I assure you).

I am sometimes having my brains venting steam off trying to figure out how to combine my precious units in such a way that they are having their victory chances as high as possible, considering the surrounding terrain, rivers, fortifications etc. But I find out that this is exactly where I am superior to the computer AI. The AI is not that good in this micromanagement, often using incorrect units... not covering victorious, but wounded ones with fresh high-defense reserves etc.

You are right that the starting location is very important. However, it is mostly geography that makes Civ3 so replayable - you have to respond to whatever you get (and as Aeson proves, just about anything can be won).

It is also true that you can't determine the proximity of other civs with skill... however, your skills will help you to properly handle all the possibilities. Are they far away? Expand, pump out settlers as mad. Are they close by? Try securing iron or horses as soon as possible and hit them the sooner the better. This is what skills are about. It's about learning how to respond to various (even unfair or disadvantageous) situations in the game.

Cheers & Good luck,
Radek

[Zachriel]

It is true that the AI has advantages that the human does not. That is a fact of life of AI at this point in technological history. Even simple games like Doom give the computer advantages the human does not.

On the diplomatic issue, here is a screen shot from one of Sullla's games. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.



Who's ganging up on whom?

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Zachriel
On the diplomatic issue, here is a screen shot from one of Sullla's games. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Who's ganging up on whom?

Oh, my... that is awesome!