One great thing about CIV III

art_vandelai · November 13, 2001, 14:17

A war really feels like a WAR! Especially in the Industrial and Modern age. It is exceedingly difficult and often a hinderance to your progression in the game to try and completely conquer a civilization in a few turns, unlike in CIV II. And objectives are more strategic - i.e. capture 1 or 2 cities or secure a resource rather than move units around trying to take everything you see. And war causes hardships on your infrastructure as well - improvements and buildings can be blasted by cannons/artillery or from ships.

And the variety of mutual protection scenarios make for some interesting World Wars that you can participate in. Makes diplomacy sem that much more critical.

Skeeve · November 13, 2001, 16:19

Yes I agree!
War is Hell, both in real life and now CIV3!

The game really makes you think as if it's a chess match now.
But much more exciting than those Chessmaster X,000 games.

Haphazard · November 13, 2001, 17:17

But maybe not Battlechess

The adding of strategic resources as an objective for invasion was a great idea, but also the strenghening of the AI means that defence is a lot more exciting. Especially with their mass attacks! What's different in the Ancient/Classical ages?

Morganstern · November 13, 2001, 17:21

I agree; the combat model is far more interesting, must be thought out, and requires strategy as opposed to the application of raw superior force.

Buster13 · November 13, 2001, 17:31

Yeah,

I've also noticed the AIs increased proficiency at waging war...defending, however, is another story. It seems that my winning percentage at conquest is near 100%...but I am a firm believer in overkill.

I like how the game "squeezes" you into being at peace most of the time. It makes you think about the objectives of war at plan it before you actually declare war rather than telling everyone they are doomed and beginning the tedious process of "civ-genocide".

Much more fun this way...but I still think corruption shouldn't keep me from having a multi-continent civilization, whether gained by wartime or peaceful expansion.

E

jbird · November 13, 2001, 18:17

I couldn't agree more. To go to war in Civ3 so far (only one shot at Regent, multiple at lower levels) is a *heavy* decision, and you should have prepared for it *long* in advance (I didn't a few times, and holy cow did the AI make me pay for it). Lots more thought required than Civ2 (take tank and howitzer, win, not all that complicated lol).

Also, i'm having a *blast* in my current game. I'm at peace with my main rival, but we're having a *massive* naval arms race nonetheless. I don't think he knows yet, but i'm *going* to invade him, and have already set up the overlapping mutual protection pacts with 5 other civs (at war with one) to make *sure* he loses.

Combat in each age seems very fun for me so far (even though others hate the combat model)

Jbird

Monoriu · November 13, 2001, 20:02

I agree, I could build 5 tanks, 5 howitzers, a few riflemen in civ 2 and comfortably declare war, knowing that I'll win and I am on pretty safe ground. I am talking about deity level here.

In my third game in civ 3 on Monarch level I didn't dare to declare war without building a vast army and garrisoning the borders of neutral states, in case they join the war against me.

Rommel393 · November 13, 2001, 20:12

I agree, war in civ3 is awesome! In civ2, I rarely fought, and when I did, it was far too easy to win. Now, I actually enjoy going to war in civ3 because it feels much more like a WAR and its actually challenging. In my opinion, the industrial and modern ages are most fun for this. Right now, I'm on my 4th game and I just got finished killing my neighbors to the south (babylonians). It wasn't a tough fight however because the entire world was against them. This is already the second time in this game that the world has gone to war against a single civ. Right now, however, a huge war is brewing... I can just tell.

Zanzin · November 13, 2001, 20:26

Initially I hated the civ3 combat model - basically, because I wasn't winning!!!

It took me a while to realise (getting beaten 3 times!!) that civ3s combat model wasn't stupid, but actually highly astute. A total invasion of one country would just about be impossible (unless maybe you mobolise your economy, which has a lot of disadvantages) - so, capturing resources/luxuries, key enemy cities which are invading you with culture is what the main objective must be - and you need strong attacking units, bombard units and definsive units to wage a sucessful war. Basically, the combat system is very realistic in civ3 - which, is, truly, a good thing!!

My only gripe is with the old units vs new units thing. Firepower should have been included in civ3, without question. I know people point to that zulu army that beat the british in the 19th c - but so what - what about the number of armies that defeated primitive native armies? A hell of a lot more won than got beaten- reference: colonization of the Americas, India, Australia, Gulf War etc!

Monoriu · November 13, 2001, 20:53

Nah I disagree about the firepower thing. It really isn't necessary.

Say, a unit with a firepower of 2 and an attack rating of 3 in civ 2 has the same attack power of a unit with an attack rating of 6 in civ 3. Why introduce another stat to confuse the players?

What some people are really complaining about is the power of modern units vs ancient units. You can change that in the editor.

Besides, if you are careful with your modern units, they are seldom defeated by ancient units. By careful I mean: don't think of it as an ancient unit. Think of it as a weaker unit that is capable of killing you. Treat it as though it is a modern unit and take all the usual precautions (bombardment, don't attack with wounded units, don't attack units sitting on mountains etc) and you'll find that you are seldom defeated by ancient units. Most of the time tanks are killed by spearman, is because the tanks are not at full strength when it attacks, the spearmen is at full strength sitting on good defensive terrain and because the attacker doesn't bother to bombard the spearmen.

VDmitry · November 13, 2001, 22:47

Some guys are confussed that how AI longbowmen can defet their cavalry. And they are NOT RIGHT.

This is means only they were used their cavalry MOST STUPID way. They allow them to ATTACK