General Overall Problems

skuzzy · August 10, 2003, 14:23

I just started playing the game recently, such as the past couple weeks... I started out oblivious like I always do and played a few games on simple mode to get a better understanding of the game. I moved on for a couple games in Monarch and had no problems. And the game is much more war oriented than Civ2 so it's been a big change with the AI. I jump right to Deity so I can get a real grasp on the game but after a lot of games I still fail to accomplish anything. I get out wondered, out built, out teched, out armed, outright pwned. After reading the forums the last couple days and learning to out tech the AI is impossible on harder levels of play my strategy is early peaceful expansion and try to build up my units when all my territory is filled. But eventually I fall so far behind it's impossible to catch up. I am too stubborn to move from Deity to Emperor (I guess it's just because I was so easily able to crush the AI on Deity with Civ2) but in anycase for you experienced players what would you suggest I do. Does anyone really play Deity? Oh, by the way I'm using 1.21f if that helps anything.

Theseus · August 10, 2003, 14:26

skuzzy, try poking around here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=59216

Hagbart · August 10, 2003, 15:14

The AI cheats on higher levels.

ToeTruck · August 10, 2003, 15:47

Skuzzy:

Yeah, you're right. Civ3 is far harder at Deity than Civ2 was, but it is still beatable...and not just on that perfect game with the perfect starting position.

There are a lot of good articles out there; Theseus' link is a great place to start.

I, myself, lean towards the builder approach and love the challenge of Civ3, but I also play warmonger, too.

My best advice would be to forget everything you learned about Civ2 and start fresh. And...don't be afraid to back off Deity for a game or two. Even Emperor is quite the challenge.

- TT

WarpStorm · August 10, 2003, 16:35

There is no shame in playing at less than Diety (or the new upcoming Sid Level).

vmxa1 · August 10, 2003, 16:43

Yes, forget CivII is was just too easy to beat.
You must expand much faster in CivIII to have enough land of different types to have a shot at all of the resources you need and luxs.

The AI does not cheat, it has some handicaps. Namely it starts with 12 extra units an extra settler and other types at Deity. It gets a break on free maint for units as well. It also as a build in trade aid.

The AI is the same for Monarch as it is for the other levels above as far as how it plays. The AI knows the make up of the land from the start and where resources will appear, this is true at all levels.

You will not be able to drop a strong unit in a city and hold off all comers in CivIII, unlike CivII. This has lots of factors, but two are that in a stack only the top unit is lost in a battle, instead of the whole stack. The other is the walls are not so strong and in fact do nothing in large cities (depending on patch level).

Peaceful wins are possible, but no reason to go that route, you can war and build and go back and forth.
You must trade and make contacts, you must get your share of land and you need to have enough troop strength to keep the AI from bullying you.

vmxa1 · August 10, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
There is no shame in playing at less than Diety (or the new upcoming Sid Level).

Not only no shame, deity is not even fun IMO. It is too much work most of the time.

skuzzy · August 11, 2003, 00:16

Thanks everyone and especially Theseus for taking the time to archive all of that junk -.- Anyways I suppose some sort of token for your generousity can be I pwn the AI on Emperor? Hehe, anyways thanks again

johncmcleod · August 11, 2003, 00:41

You must be a natural at Civ. I have had the game since Christmas of 2001 and I am only on Regent, and I have a hard time keeping up with the computeon tech even when I am a very large nation.

Hagbart · August 11, 2003, 07:53

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

The AI does not cheat, it has some handicaps. Namely it starts with 12 extra units an extra settler and other types at Deity. It gets a break on free maint for units as well. It also as a build in trade aid.

The AI is the same for Monarch as it is for the other levels above as far as how it plays. The AI knows the make up of the land from the start and where resources will appear, this is true at all levels.

Well, I consider this cheating too.

Fatwreck · August 11, 2003, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
You must be a natural at Civ. I have had the game since Christmas of 2001 and I am only on Regent, and I have a hard time keeping up with the computeon tech even when I am a very large nation.

was civ3 your first civ-style game?

Lord_Davinator · August 11, 2003, 10:02

civ3 is much harder than civ2.... infact civ2 strategies don't work too well in civ3... which is why its rather nice...

johncmcleod · August 11, 2003, 12:03

Before civ3 the only strategy games I had played were a few RTS. The only TBS game I had ever played was Panzer General 2. I am also young for a civ player.

vmxa1 · August 11, 2003, 12:15

Hagbart, you can do that, but it is not proper to call it cheating. Cheating is when you do something that is not part of the set of rules layed down at the start of the event.
These are called spots or handicaps. Players at Deity are saying were are good enough to beat the AI, so we will give it a spot to make it fair. The spots are documented.

johncmcleod · August 11, 2003, 13:08

Quote:

Hagbart, you can do that, but it is not proper to call it cheating. Cheating is when you do something that is not part of the set of rules layed down at the start of the event.
These are called spots or handicaps. Players at Deity are saying were are good enough to beat the AI, so we will give it a spot to make it fair. The spots are documented.

So does that mean that at the games at carnivals the carnies aren't cheating when they rig the games? You have to watch out for them carnies. They're clever folk.

vmxa1 · August 11, 2003, 14:01

If they are rigging the contest, they are cheating as they are stating a proposition without the full disclosure of facts.

zorbop · August 11, 2003, 14:33

i have found that the way to win the higher difficulty levels is simply surviving to the industrial age. on deity i am unable to build any wonders until industrial age. if you can at least be equal with the ai in tech at that point go for industrialization first, and don't trade it...

the ai is completely incapable of taking advantage of factories or railroads. take advantage of that.

gunkulator · August 11, 2003, 15:16

The biggest adjustment I had to make going from CivII to CivIII is the unpredictability of combat. In CivII you just knew that your Cavalry would defeat a Musketeer. Not so in III. There are no more Howitzers, Spies or other killer units in this game.

David Murray · August 12, 2003, 08:00

Oh yes - the combat system in CivIII SUCKS, let's not make any bones about it.

ToeTruck · August 12, 2003, 18:21

Getting rid of Zones of Control and that silly "destroy the whole stack" rule (I once destroyed a stack of 54! Pikemen) are superb improvements over Civ2.

Yeah, sometimes a Spearman beats a Tank, but that is way rare. And, yeah, bombardment takes a little getting used to, but overall the combat system is excellent.

That's what I think.

- TT

vmxa1 · August 12, 2003, 19:58

I'mwith you ToeTruck. I hate ZoC and stack killing. Super city with walls stopping anything the AI sent at you. Not nearly as bad as a few bad beats in CivIII.

David Murray · August 13, 2003, 06:13

Agree wholeheartedly that CivIII combat beats CivII by a mile. However, while IME a spearman never beats a tank (the odds are truly miniscule under any other circumstances than when the spearman is elite and the tank has only 1 hit point left), fortified spearmen in cities quite often beat cavalry. Musketmen fortified in cities are quite nasty too. I don't think that old fashioned units should be allowed to have such a moderate chance of beating an offensive unit designed to take on riflemen.

The one thing that needs to be brought back from CivII and refined is the idea that old units simply don't have much of a chance of beating newer ones. I *think* it was called firepower in Civ2. For example, there's almost no conceivable way a spearman or pikeman can beat pre-industrial age cavalry armed with horses and rifles. How could they - unless they chucked their spears?

I believe I read somewhere that like something firepower is coming to Conquests, something which stops things being so wildly random. Can't wait!

Gufnork · August 13, 2003, 11:29

Well, if you hide in a city it's not that hard to kill someone riding in, even if he has a musket. Especially when better trained. You need line of sight to fire those things and cities has a lot of places to hide. So does mountains. I've never lost a cav to a spearman on open field so I don't find it illogical at all.

vmxa1 · August 13, 2003, 12:09

I always felt that FP should have been added to smooth out the rough edges. I am not one of those that wants to see much weaker units win any battles. It should be doable, but I should not see it more than once every few games. It should be a huge surprise. The RNG provides a large swing and FP can antenuate it a bit.
Firaxis felt that ancient units needed to have a chance to win to keep civs in the game that were way behind. I think this is misguided and flat out wrong. If they are that far behind, let them lose.

Panag · August 13, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by David Murray
Agree wholeheartedly that CivIII combat beats CivII by a mile. However, while IME a spearman never beats a tank (the odds are truly miniscule under any other circumstances than when the spearman is elite and the tank has only 1 hit point left), fortified spearmen in cities quite often beat cavalry. Musketmen fortified in cities are quite nasty too. I don't think that old fashioned units should be allowed to have such a moderate chance of beating an offensive unit designed to take on riflemen.

The one thing that needs to be brought back from CivII and refined is the idea that old units simply don't have much of a chance of beating newer ones. I *think* it was called firepower in Civ2. For example, there's almost no conceivable way a spearman or pikeman can beat pre-industrial age cavalry armed with horses and rifles. How could they - unless they chucked their spears?

I believe I read somewhere that like something firepower is coming to Conquests, something which stops things being so wildly random. Can't wait!

hi ,

spearman where used well into the 18th cen , .......

they where still deadly to horses , ......

have a nice day

ToeTruck · August 13, 2003, 18:55

I agree with panag...

Sitting here in the comfort of my office chair, I see no reason why a Spearman with a really long pointy stick shouldn't every now and then kill a charging horse whether it is the basis of a Horseman or a Cavalry. The underlying technology (the horse) is vulnerable to long pointy sticks.

And, I also agree with David Murray and vmxa1...

Firepower would certainly smooth the rough edges, at least in the extreme cases. While I can envision a long pointy stick possibly killing a horse, it is much harder to envision the same technology defeating a metal shelled Tank. Yep, might happen, but shouldn't very often.

And, I have my own concerns...

As long as firepower is implemented to eliminate the extreme abuses, I'm all for it. If, however, it means that any technology that is only a minor improvement on the previous technology will always win in combat, I am opposed.

In other words, Cavalry and Riflemen shouldn't always defeat Knights, Medieval Infantry, and Pikemen, and even occasionally Spearmen and Swordsmen. Tanks shouldn't always defeat Infantry and Geurrillas (and they don't), but they also shouldn't always defeat Riflemen and Musketmen.

Quote:

Firaxis felt that ancient units needed to have a chance to win to keep civs in the game that were way behind. I think this is misguided and flat out wrong. If they are that far behind, let them lose.

Are you sure, vmxa1, that this was Firaxis' reason? If so, I agree that it is misguided. However, I do believe there is gameplay value in the uncertainty of the current system. Under Civ2, it was way to easy to *know* you would win. Where's the gameplay fun in having that knowledge?

One of the reasons I play Civ3 is because I don't know. At least not yet. The longer it takes me to master a game (and I'm a ways away with Civ3), the more I will play.

That's where I'm at.

-TT