Change the game name to "Roads & Resources"

Ludwig · November 1, 2001, 00:52

I think over time some of the criticism of this iteration of Civ will fade, because the installation issues [which I didn't experience, by the way, and the machine that I keep in reserve for games can be tempermental as hell] pale compared to the gameplay.

The AI may be better, and it may not be better. I've only had the game for a day, and eight hours of play isn't enough to know. BUT the game itself is more difficult, due to the new resource and trade system, and the tradeoffs that system sets up keeps you boxed in so badly that the AI "feels" smarter.

Just about everything in the game is dependent upon your road network and your access to critical resources. City happiness is dependent upon possession of luxury resources and road access to them. New unit construction is dependent upon possession of strategic resources and road access to them. City growth is dependent upon possession of food bonus resources [if you don't have flood plain tiles, city growth is slow in the absence of food bonuses]. You will NOT ever have all the resources you need in the early game and the mid-game, if you play on a decent sized map. So you've got the expansion, city management, and military tasks you had with Civ II, but you have these additional new "supply" tasks. The additional tasks create just enough of a guns vs. butter type conflict to keep you from being an old-style juggernaut.

I also don't immediately see simple strategies to give the human player back an insuperable advantage.

Here's an example:

I'm playing as the Persians. The Persians are industrious, and my workers build the bleep out of roads, mines, whatever. I'm expanding as fast as I can, tying everything together with roads so I can get the luxury resource bonuses in all of my cities [yes, that's right, a luxury bonus being worked in one city raises the happiness of all of your cities, as long as they are tied together by roads]. I'm ahead of the 11 AI's I'm playing on a gigantic map from the outset, and things look peachy. I'm thinking, Stay ahead in research, just keep rolling until you get gunpowder. This is Civ, after all - all you have to do is get to gunpowder, right?...I don't have horses, and no one will trade horses to me, but I've got iron and lots of Immortals all over the place, so who needs horses, right?

All of a sudden the Eqyptians start demanding techs as tribute. I don't want to give them the best ones, so I try to foist Polytheism and other such garbage onto them, but they won't back off. The Eqyptians DO have horses, and all of a sudden they swoop down on me EVERYWHERE AT ONCE, and the graphics may be useless to you hard-core types but I have to tell you all those little chariots running around look impressive. They pillage the roads leading to my iron, they pillage the roads I'm using to trade luxury goods with the Babylonians and the Greeks, and they start dinging some of my outlying cities. I still don't think it's a big deal, because, well - it's only the AI, right? But suddenly I realize that the GODFORSAKEN AI UNDERSTANDS FORCE PROTECTION. Instead of stupidly throwing his units against fortified units until they're all dead, he's a god-damn Ulysses S. Grant out there, routing his chariots in one at a time, taking some damage and then allowing them to retreat, staying where I can't rush him without leaving my cities undefended. In CTP2, you will recall, the retreat function was the most unbalanced element in the game, because you could use it to literally never lose a unit, while you cut the AI to ribbons; in Civ III, the AI has learned how to do this, and seems to know when you can't chase him because you just don't have the mobile units. I've lost a few cities that it would be suicide to try to take back [the AI is also fond of hitting my units when they're in the open and then running away] and I barely, just barely, have been able to hold on to my iron. When you have to defend your cities, PLUS your resources, PLUS every tile of road [your resources are no good if your road network doesn't get them to your production cities, remember] and when you have to do it at a mobility disadvantage, the game is a challenge...I'm heading back to the game now, and if the iron goes, the AI will inevitably win.

albiedamned · November 1, 2001, 01:07

Excellent thoughts on the game. I agree - roads and resources seem to be the key to life.

I have one piece of advice for you regarding the Egyptians: COUNTERATTACK!!!

Do the same thing to him that he is doing to you regarding cutting off resources. Go into his territory with a few units (immortals, or maybe even just spearmen), look for where he is getting his horses, and pillage the roads. Don't worry about taking any cities, just cut off his horse supply. He won't be nearly as dangerous once you do that.

Of course what I just suggested may be tactically impossible for you, but if at all possible I recommend it.

Ludwig · November 1, 2001, 01:44

I wish I knew where his stinking horses WERE.

Horses in this game are as rare as virgins on Capitol Hill.

I was reduced to employing a "Beg for Peace" strategy. To enhance my humiliation, he refused to receive my envoy for three turns.

The Babylonians traded me horses for Monarchy, AND some gold, AND furs - and I was happy to make the deal.

I think that your advice is good, though. All sorts of new troop deployment strategies will probably be necessary in this game. Generally I keep mobile troops far in the rear, near the middle of my road net, in sort of a Diocletian pounce mode - and I only keep units in cities, always. The new ZOC rules may make it necessary to actually take some units out of the cities and deploy them in line, a la Operational Art of War and the numberless wargames that inspired it. The enemy gets to critical areas too easily when you use the old strategy. And at least some mobile units may need to be near the border, to be available to actually undertake a counterattack in a timely manner.

If I end up with my units deployed in unbroken fortress lines like an old SSI game, because that's the only way to protect my resources and rear areas, I will fall out of my chair.

albiedamned · November 1, 2001, 01:49

I don't know that it's necessary to literally form a line across your border. Having a good road network and mobile units in your cities that are within range to respond to any incursion might be good enough. Fortresses are also definitely worthwhile, since they let you somewhat control surrounding squares (no one can pass without suffering a free attack from you). But fortresses do take a long time to build.

Also, I'm not going to pretend to know what Diocletian means!

Comrade Tribune · November 1, 2001, 01:50

You might end up having to build the Chinese Wall! (Not the Wonder, I mean some Ersatz Chinese Wall of your own.)

albiedamned · November 1, 2001, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludwig
I wish I knew where his stinking horses WERE.

Horses in this game are as rare as virgins on Capitol Hill.

By the way, I have 3 or 4 horses in my territory. So obviously it varies from game to game.

Comrade Tribune · November 1, 2001, 01:52

Quote:

[SIZE=1]
Also, I'm not going to pretend to know what Diocletian means!

The Emperor before Constantine.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · November 1, 2001, 02:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludwig
I wish I knew where his stinking horses WERE.

Horses in this game are as rare as virgins on Capitol Hill.

I was reduced to employing a "Beg for Peace" strategy. To enhance my humiliation, he refused to receive my envoy for three turns.

The Babylonians traded me horses for Monarchy, AND some gold, AND furs - and I was happy to make the deal.

I think that your advice is good, though. All sorts of new troop deployment strategies will probably be necessary in this game. Generally I keep mobile troops far in the rear, near the middle of my road net, in sort of a Diocletian pounce mode - and I only keep units in cities, always. The new ZOC rules may make it necessary to actually take some units out of the cities and deploy them in line, a la Operational Art of War and the numberless wargames that inspired it. The enemy gets to critical areas too easily when you use the old strategy. And at least some mobile units may need to be near the border, to be available to actually undertake a counterattack in a timely manner.

If I end up with my units deployed in unbroken fortress lines like an old SSI game, because that's the only way to protect my resources and rear areas, I will fall out of my chair.

Ludwig,

Actually one of my favorite Civ games (I tell this one in the office all the time; they must be sick of hearing it by now) involved a game where I was on a somewhat narrow continent in the middle, with the Indians below me and the Germans above.

I managed to build an "iron curtain" of fortresses across a chokepoint section of the map and garrisoned a Legion in each one so the Indians couldn't get through without declaring war on me, and because of the ZOC you get with a fortress, if they even got close, my Legions got a free attack in.

To make a long story short, I was able to keep the Indians pinned back and cut off from basically everything the entire game. By 1920, they were still using archers

It was many, many builds of Civ III ago, and probably on Warlord or some other easy level, but it was incredibly funny. And not so far off from your comment about fortress lines. Could make an interesting map, playing with chokepoints and fortresses....

Dan

albiedamned · November 1, 2001, 02:10

What are you doing up this late Dan?

I'm doing my best to defend Civ3's honor on every thread I can get my hand's on. But it's an uphill battle. People just fear change. And they don't seem to want to read the manual. They just find something they don't understand or don't like, assume it's a bug or something that was poorly designed, and start posting away without bothering to investigate.

I for one am addicted. I just got it Monday night. I stayed up to 4:30 Monday night, which was rough (I have to get up for work each morning). Last night I went to bed around midnight, and so I think I'm recharged for a 2 or 3 am run tonight.

Pyrodrew · November 1, 2001, 02:28

Ludwig - that was quite an entertaining post on your game.

Game sounds great.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · November 1, 2001, 02:45

Quote:

Originally posted by albiedamned
What are you doing up this late Dan?

Chatting, posting, you know. Me can't sleep so good as I am on the verge of buying my first home... I'm a bit jittery at the moment

Quote:

I'm doing my best to defend Civ3's honor on every thread I can get my hand's on. But it's an uphill battle. People just fear change. And they don't seem to want to read the manual. They just find something they don't understand or don't like, assume it's a bug or something that was poorly designed, and start posting away without bothering to investigate.

I don't get why people wouldn't want to read the manual, seems like the weight of it was such a big deal!

Seriously, though, we all appreciate those of you who are enjoying the game telling others, and those of you who aren't, all I can say is I'm sorry to hear that. You can't please everyone all the time, and I'm a gamer too, so I know how it can be. But I think the game is a deep but fun game and that it can stand on its own merits. IMHO it can be deep and interesting but I think it's still easy for someone new to Civ or even to strategy gaming to pick up.

As a sequel it'll always be compared to Civ II and perhaps this difference is what is driving a lot of the perceived negativity -- hard to say. I think some people really underestimated just how different the game would play, not so much in terms of game mechanics, but just in how differently you have to plan, strategize and coordinate. You have to be a multi-faceted player, I think.

Quote:

I for one am addicted. I just got it Monday night. I stayed up to 4:30 Monday night, which was rough (I have to get up for work each morning). Last night I went to bed around midnight, and so I think I'm recharged for a 2 or 3 am run tonight.

I wonder if we remembered to put that legal clause about "not responsible for failed marriages, losing your job... " into the manual??

Dan

Jason · November 1, 2001, 02:58

Regarding the fortress "initiative attack issue," it reminds me to ask something. I haven't gotten to ICBMs yet, and I was wondering if there were any "reactive attack" options ala MAD for a Civ taking a first strike? Or is the only protection a large stockpile or SDI or both? It could work either way I guess. But theoretically once ICBMs exist, the "defender" should get to launch ALL of his/her ICBMs in retaliation, not just the ones that survive the attack.

Interesting either way, just curious.

lockstep · November 1, 2001, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludwig
I still don't think it's a big deal, because, well - it's only the AI, right? But suddenly I realize that the GODFORSAKEN AI UNDERSTANDS FORCE PROTECTION. Instead of stupidly throwing his units against fortified units until they're all dead, he's a god-damn Ulysses S. Grant out there, routing his chariots in one at a time, taking some damage and then allowing them to retreat, staying where I can't rush him without leaving my cities undefended.

Even if I wouldn´t have planned to buy Civ3 the moment it is released in Europe, I would have changed my mind after reading your post.

ChrisShaffer · November 1, 2001, 13:39

I have roads leading in three directions from my horses to my cities. That way, the AI has to cut multiple links to deprive me of horses. However, in my current game, there seem to be horses everywhere. Iron, on the other hand, doesn't exist on this continent. At all.

Steve Clark · November 1, 2001, 13:58

I always read the manual before I play, as well as play the tutorial, if there is one. What I have seen and heard thus far, it certainly does require new thinkings. I'm a harcore, deity Civ2 players and it looks like I'm going to have to start on chieftain or warlord and that's a good thing, right?

gfrazieror · November 1, 2001, 18:42

I wonder, however, if the paucity of key strategic resources (not a scarcity, mind you, but an absolute absence of them from entire continents) will not seriously turn people off. I mean, having them everywhere would obviously remove any challenge. But hopelessly crippling the human player so that there is no chance of surviving isn't going to make people very happy.

marcuspeddle · November 1, 2001, 20:04

I don't have the game yet but I think the lack of resources on a continent is not so bad if you can trade for it. If you have harbours you can trade with people on other continents, right? In the real world there are many countries that have no or diddly-squat natural resources. Korea, for example, has to import all (or almost all) its oil from other places. Even rich countries like the united States have to import oil. I think this adds to the challenge of the game.

gfrazieror · November 1, 2001, 20:12

Having those sorts of shortages definitely are going to require different coping strategies to move forward. You'll need to develop a relationship with a friendly civ that has access to those resources you lack, or pray you have something they desperately need to cause them to want to be friends with you. This dynamic alone will definitely change the way the game is played.

I note, however, that many of the challenges that humans face the AI doesn't seem to be so critically affected by. The Russians under AI still grow like rabbits, expanding at an alarming pace, and they're as aggressive and prone to bully as they ever were in Civ and Civ II.

Lord Maxwell · November 2, 2001, 07:09

Well, my hopes for winning my current game are gone. I need uranium to build the spaceship, as it's the only victory left that I am capable of doing before 2050. But the problem is that even with every piece of land on earth inside someones cultural borders I still can't trade for the damn resource. It's not on either of my two continents, and none of the AI fractions have it either. So between 5 AI fractions they spent all Uranium on earth. (If there is any at all, I've been looking up and down the map and can't see it anywhere. Trading world maps with everyone in return for giving them fission pretty much. (Three countries didn't have it, so I gave it to em in the hopes of someone finding something radioactive in their region...))

No such luck.

Another 20 hours down the drain. Hi ho, here we go again.

Simpson II · November 2, 2001, 07:56

These descriptions of the AI have me drooling for the game... definitely no more single-warrior-per-city into the modern age, then?

I'll still be starting on Deity, though. I've only lost one Civ-series games outside OCC, and I'm damn well going to enjoy the challenge to survive while it lasts.

Falconius · November 2, 2001, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ludwig
he's a god-damn Ulysses S. Grant out there

Very Funny Post!!!

I'm really enjoying this game. The concentrated attacks by the AI are a dream come true!

Sinapus · November 2, 2001, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
I don't get why people wouldn't want to read the manual, seems like the weight of it was such a big deal!

Actually, I got the game earlier in the week, but was afraid to load the game because I'd probably play it too much and suffer at work the next morning. So I read the manual instead.

A few of the complaints make it apparent that some people didn't RTFM, or the civlopedia, though.