I'm thinking of breakin' out Civ 3 again. What should I know?

JohnT · December 30, 2003, 22:51

Didn't really care for the "been there, done that" feel of the game the first time I played it, but admit that the past year+ has been very, very busy for me and that I probably didn't give it a fair shot.

Any quick tips for an old Civ-2 player?

Catt · December 31, 2003, 00:38

Can't think of any useful quick tips other than Civ 3 is a different game than Civ 2 and trying to bring a Civ 2 perspective to it may produce lots of frustration.

(I never played Civ 2 but have heard that view expressed by too many Civ 2 players that now enjoy Civ 3 not to have internalized it!).

If you play and it holds your attention enough to make it worth your while to really start digging into the game, the "Must Read" topped thread in the Strategy Forum is a great resource. It is found here.

Catt

JohnT · December 31, 2003, 02:10

Thanks.

There are so many different threads that I haven't the slightest idea where to begin.

JohnT · December 31, 2003, 02:11

I also had the video bug (blank screen) but it seems that the patch fixed it.

vmxa1 · December 31, 2003, 02:42

If you have the time and have question, create a thread like you did and post a save and ask for advise. It is a good way to get some input.
I played tons of Civ2 and Test of Time and can say for sure the game looks the same, but it is nothing like it. Resources and culture and a new combat engine make for new tactics.

Inverse Icarus · December 31, 2003, 03:12

JohnnyT! glad to see you have the time to get some civ in

are you playing vanilla civ (no expansions?)

and as everyone has said, civ3 is a entirely different animal. it's roots are in civ2, but there is a lot more. there are a bunch of changes, and you're going to get pissed off at a few of them, but remember, it IS a different game.

Arrian · December 31, 2003, 10:04

John,

Whichever version you're using (Vanilla CivIII, PTW, or Conquests), make sure you're patched up. IIRC, this means v 1.29 for CivIII, v.1.27 for PTW, and well, Conquests is kinda a work in progress (beta patch, long story).

The "must read" threads are good, and there is a ton of info there. Other than that, I suggest you hang out in the strategy forum and maybe post some saves of games in progress. Typically, that results in getting a lot of informative feedback.

-Arrian

JohnT · December 31, 2003, 13:50

I'm playing Vanilla Civ, with patch (needed it to correct the "video gone blank" problem - fixed

).

The differences I noticed so far:

1. You can't just steamroll over everything like you did in Civ 2... have offenses been weakened/defensed strengthened in the early game?

2. Techs don't come as fast as they used to. But then, not adjusting my tech-spending levels for 20 turns didn't help either.

3. I like the borders and the "culture" stuff.

aoerana · December 31, 2003, 14:01

Read about city placement. Big difference now.

Arrian · December 31, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm playing Vanilla Civ, with patch (needed it to correct the "video gone blank" problem - fixed

).

The differences I noticed so far:

1. You can't just steamroll over everything like you did in Civ 2... have offenses been weakened/defensed strengthened in the early game?

2. Techs don't come as fast as they used to. But then, not adjusting my tech-spending levels for 20 turns didn't help either.

3. I like the borders and the "culture" stuff.

1. Not really, I don't think so. Well, maybe. I honestly don't remember the CivII unit stats. I do remember that the CivII "fortify" bonus was larger, but I don't think you got the "crossing river" (25% defense bonus) or "larger than size 6, or size 12" (50 and 100%, respectively) city bonuses. You need more units in CivIII... just having a small number of good units isn't enough. Technological superiority is still a big boost, but IIRC, it was HUGE in CivII. My advice: mass upgrades (warrior -> sword, chariot -> horseman) help you put together large ancient era attack forces faster than you could by just building them.

2. They can, depending on what level you're playing on.

3. Yeah, so do I.

-Arrian

vmxa1 · December 31, 2003, 15:13

The tech will speed up once you have contacts with all the civs. It moves faster at higher levels, because the AI gets boost.

I think the issue of running over the AI in Civ2 was in large part due to the kill one kill all in CivII. ZoC could be used to hurt the AI.
In CivIII the older units are not completely worthless, that pike can still kill somebody if forted in a city and backed by cannon/longbow. In Civ2, if you have older units, you may as well get rid of them.

JohnT · December 31, 2003, 15:26

I started as the Americans... from what I'm seeing, I could've made an easier choice. Luckily, I'm playing chieftan level (no desire to frustrate myself this soon in the game).

Also, it seems as if combined arms are more important than just a swarm of one single weapon...

Kloreep · December 31, 2003, 17:42

The Americans are pretty good due to the Industrious trait, which most players agree is hands-down the best in Vanilla Civ3 and PTW (it was nerfed a little in Conquests to be more balanced with the other traits). Expansionist can also be quite helpful, though I personally don't like the fact the trait dies out after the early game. Their Unique Unit (the F-15) is pretty bad though, since it doesn't come till the last Era by which time things are pretty much decided.

Bombardment units especially are good to combine with your attackers. Make sure to build and use some of them (catapults come first with Mathematics, then Cannons with Metallurgy); they're invaluable when attacking a fortified position where the AI has the advantage. The only downside is they can't keep up with mounted units, forcing you to either leave the bombarders behind or slow down your mounts.

vmxa1 · January 1, 2004, 04:14

Americans took the biggest hit in C3C. Their best trait was IND and it got toned down. The other trait is very map dependant.

So they were decent or better in Civ/PTW and now can be luke warm in C3C and the wron map or location.

Xorbon · January 1, 2004, 20:55

The best advice I can give to a first time player of Civ3 is to start out on chieftain level in oder to get used to the game.

The difference you are experiencing with combat could be the reduced hit points of the game's units. Hit points used to range from 10 to 30 (40 for battleships) in Civ2, and now they range from 2 to 5. That makes a large difference with randomness. Also, the game is no longer "wait for howitzers and steamroll the enemy" like it was with Civ2. Warfare is viable during any of the game's eras.

Cerbykins · January 2, 2004, 03:30

Realisations that must be made

1) When you fight, bring BIG stacks, not few (as already mentioned)

2) When at war, have allies - or expect the AI to dogpile on you

3) Expect to AI to be a good expander. Although at Chieftain, it's infrastructure leaves a lot to be desired.

4) Big score = territory + pop. NOTHING else. Future tech may as well not exist

5) Big tech leads = almost impossible to get. Can be done, don't rely on it happening. Rely on your 'smacky' stacks instead to win your wars

6) 1 worker per city, at least. like the 1 settler per city idea before, in the other games

There's a lot more to it than that, but you can't go far wrong on chieftain knowing that lot. Besides, like they said above, you gotta learn to crawl before you can walk

P.S. No improvements help the luxury rate. This does NOT mean the slider will never be useful. Just bear it in mind for now, I don't want you to suffer like me and leave it for 18 months

JohnT · January 2, 2004, 11:04

Well, I don't seem to be doing to badly on this Chieftan game. I read the manual and started over as the Persians - their industry and science bonuses are more my style. I do have the tech lead, and have used my raging hordes of Immortals against the hapless Egyptians - dare to exist on my continent, willya?

One thing I've discovered is that in the early game it's preferable to just raze a city and plop one of your settlers in that spot rather than worry about dissent and upheavals as I continue to prosecute the war against my newly-conquered cities forebears. Unless there's a Wonder there, of course, but even then... is keeping an expired Lighthouse worth the hassle of pacifying the city? Yeah, you get culture points, but that's about it...

Next to be destroyed are the Iroqouis...

Harovan · January 2, 2004, 12:06

You can play every way in Chieftain and still win, but generally you should try to keep cities in that early stage of the game, unless they are really badly placed. The flipping chance and the resistance are still low, they will significantly grow in later stages, as the other civs gain population and culture. It's easy to keep early cities. It's hard to keep big metropolises with 10+ resistors and lots of drafting unhappiness.

JohnT · January 2, 2004, 13:17

That's true. But... "drafting unhappiness"? Is that an actual game term or is that another way of saying "war-weariness"? (I hope that doesn't sound snarky, I'm just a bit confused.)

steven8r · January 2, 2004, 13:37

The 1 thing that you should know is that Civ is a Timesink.

Prepare and account for that, and all else will fall into place.

Steven

vmxa1 · January 2, 2004, 13:49

Drafting is seperate from WW. Civs under pressure will draft units as often as they can and create a lot of unhappy citizens, in addition to WW.

Snotty · January 2, 2004, 14:07

Understanding the culture flip formula greatly reduces the frustration caused by flips. Most of those early cities are safe as long as your culture is comparable (check the culture graph for relative size). Also make sure you starve them down 1 pop as any further growth will be of your own nationality and so will reduce the flip chance. The total culture in that city before will play a part, so wonder capital should have a larger garrison if you want to keep it.

You need nationalism tech (industrial age) to draft.

I remember hardly anything about civ 2. Number 3 has caused a total eclipse of the brain.

Harovan · January 2, 2004, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
That's true. But... "drafting unhappiness"? Is that an actual game term or is that another way of saying "war-weariness"? (I hope that doesn't sound snarky, I'm just a bit confused.)

What vmxa1 said. The AI drafts a lot after Nationalism is discovered (the pre-requisite for draft), if cities are in danger. You can see this if you click on an unhappy citizen and (s)he says: "No more drafting! Hell no, we won't go", whereas after pop rushing they say: "We can not forget the cruel oppression you bore upon us".

Back to the early cities: You should mainly keep them, because each city represents the 30 shields and 20 food you'd need for a settler. This is an asset especially in the early game, when shields are rare and food surplus is precious due to the production penalty under despotism. Additionally: The AI "sees" later resources even if you don't (some people call this cheating, I call it an understandable advantage) and often plopps its cities close to them. So the resource is yours if you take the city as it is.

vmxa1 · January 2, 2004, 17:52

I agree in the main that captured cities early in the game are like found gold and should be held. Some exceptions exist of course.

It is late in the game that I would consider a raze and found a new one. This occurs for me when happy citizens are an issue and I have lots of size 12 cities with no hospitols or I have not learn that tech. Now I can drop a settler in a hurry or for cash.
The city regrows quickly and it cost me little. I can free up the troops for more captures.

MarshalN · January 3, 2004, 23:38

Being myself also a restarter of Civ3 (similarly, I played it a little, didn't feel like Civ2, and moved on), I have to say this time around it's more fun. You just can't do a lot of the things that you could in Civ2, like grabbing a huge tech lead early on, expand like crazy until you get howitzers, etc. The AI will gang up on you early on if you don't pay attention, and two spearmen per city is the minimum, from what I can tell..

Harovan · January 4, 2004, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
It is late in the game that I would consider a raze and found a new one. This occurs for me when happy citizens are an issue and I have lots of size 12 cities with no hospitols or I have not learn that tech. Now I can drop a settler in a hurry or for cash.
The city regrows quickly and it cost me little. I can free up the troops for more captures.

Aeson once published a neat trick, called "Recycling Blitz". It works after the discovery of Recycling (Modern Age). When you sell improvements then, you get not only gold, but 25% of the shields back. Now imagine, you just captured a big fat size 24 city full of resistors and unhappiness. Set the production to settler and sell improvements, till the shield box is full. This way, the settler will be ready next turn despite of the resistance (you normally can't rush if there are resistors in the city) and even if the city riots. The city doesn't flip back in the first turn. I can't prove this, but I never saw it happen, and Aeson mentioned it too. Next turn abandon the city, thus getting rid of all the resistance and eventually riots and refound it with the just built settler. It will have one foreign citizen. Violà, you just made a city content in only one turn.

vmxa1 · January 4, 2004, 02:59

Yes I have done that many times. I like it especialy when I am just starting to get a foot hold on their land. I am force to hold these large metros and will use the sale of factories as they are worthless for those cities with the corruption.
Once I run out of the need or shields for settlers I will go to workers. These can be bought once resistance is over to get the pop down to a reasonable level.

Just remember things like banks yield no shields, only gold. I also want to rid myself of polluting structures as I will not be getting any anti pollution ones.