I must be the worst Civ3 player . . . ever

[Andrew_Jay]

Okay, I finally played one whole game of civ 3 (I had another going on a large map, but it was getting boring because of the wait time, and it was really only a learning game where I was doing everything wrong). But my second game as the Japanese, on Warlord setting was going fairly well, but to keep it short, I ended in 2050 with no victory, second (out of 5 remaining) to the Persians and with some 10 or more techs un-researched.
What did I do wrong?!
I've played civ 2 for two years and was good at it, is there something really different with civ 3 that I haven't noticed?
Feel free to mock and laugh at me

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
I've played civ 2 for two years and was good at it, is there something really different with civ 3 that I haven't noticed?

I hate to point it out to you guy, but it isn't Civ2. It's a new game with new stategies. If it was Civ2.1 why bother?

Good Luck and hang in there.

[Asharak]

I have to agree with you, Andrew. Overall, I've found Civ3 a more challenging game as well. I expect much of that is adjustment time, but I don't recall feeling quite so out of place when I switched from Civ1 to Civ2 (that was several years ago, so perhaps my memory is deceiving me, but that's beside the point).

It makes me wonder what game the reviewers who say there have been small to no changes in Civ3 are playing. But I'm getting off on a tangent here.

I also give kudos to the AI programmer Soren Johnson: even though the AI still cheats, something that annoys me but that I've resigned myself to, overall I like it's play much more than the AI of Civ2. 'Like' as in admire the skill of, then proceed to curse violently when it kicks my ass.

(See, look -- no mocking or laughing! )

[kmj]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
Okay, I finally played one whole game of civ 3 (I had another going on a large map, but it was getting boring because of the wait time, and it was really only a learning game where I was doing everything wrong). But my second game as the Japanese, on Warlord setting was going fairly well, but to keep it short, I ended in 2050 with no victory, second (out of 5 remaining) to the Persians and with some 10 or more techs un-researched.
What did I do wrong?!
I've played civ 2 for two years and was good at it, is there something really different with civ 3 that I haven't noticed?
Feel free to mock and laugh at me

bah! I'm on my third game (warlord) and I'll be lucky if I finish second at the end... just keep truckin'. There's alot of differences between civ2 and this.

[dexters]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I hate to point it out to you guy, but it isn't Civ2. It's a new game with new stategies. If it was Civ2.1 why bother?

Good Luck and hang in there.

God White, I wish more people realizes that fact before they log on to whine about combat or this or that. And the comparisons inevitably go to Civ 2

Oh, and hang in there Andrew If all else fails, nuke em. If you're going down, might as well bring your enemy's largest cities and their score with you.

[GNGSpam]

Yeah Nuke em

oh wait

Nukes are utterly sissy in Civ3

nevermind

[shclo]

Originally posted by Asharak
I have to agree with you, Andrew. Overall, I've found Civ3 a more challenging game as well. I expect much of that is adjustment time, but I don't recall feeling quite so out of place when I switched from Civ1 to Civ2 (that was several years ago, so perhaps my memory is deceiving me, but that's beside the point).

It makes me wonder what game the reviewers who say there have been small to no changes in Civ3 are playing. But I'm getting off on a tangent here.

I also give kudos to the AI programmer Soren Johnson: even though the AI still cheats, something that annoys me but that I've resigned myself to, overall I like it's play much more than the AI of Civ2. 'Like' as in admire the skill of, then proceed to curse violently when it kicks my ass.

(See, look -- no mocking or laughing! )

You've got to be kidding about not minding the AI cheating. To me that is the mark of a sorry-ass game when the AI has to resort to cheating to be able to compete with a human opponent. That reminds me of some of the DOS games of the early 80's before good AI algorythms became more common and expected. There is no reason they couldn't have given this game a well thought out decision tree that is able to give anyone a decent game. Ideally, the hardest levels have the computer playing at its smartest with no more information than a human player would have. Then the lower levels actually has the computer "dumbing down" its tactics to the degree specified by the level. Chess games are designed such that the higher levels only allow the AI more time to plot out moves and determine their possible consequences. This game to me appears to have great appeal, great ideas, and potentially great game play, but if the AI cheats, the game will suck once its newness wears off.

[Ludwig]

A quick question, if that's OK -

In what manner does the AI cheat if you're playing on Warlord?

Although the AI has been aggressive and resourceful, I haven't seen absurd unit totals or spawning or "instant" wonders or any of the crap I saw in CTP. I haven't come across the infinite treasury bug yet, though. But what is he doing to cheat?

[playshogi]

I thought it odd that the AI planted a city at the exact right spot in 2950 BC so that iron AND coal would be within the city radius. Or planting a city on the ONLY rubber resource on that continent. That's why I don't mind the AI making cities in "my" backyard.

[dexters]

I think AI doesn't get any bonuses below prince level.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by dexters
I think AI doesn't get any bonuses below prince level.

Yes, but if they say it to themselves enough times they'll believe it.

[Skanky Burns]

From what Soren said, below Regent level, the AI gets production penalties so as to make its easier for you.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by playshogi
I thought it odd that the AI planted a city at the exact right spot in 2950 BC so that iron AND coal would be within the city radius. Or planting a city on the ONLY rubber resource on that continent. That's why I don't mind the AI making cities in "my" backyard.

I wonder what the AI does about city placement. Does it choose a spot based on what resources it can see there (even though they arent discovered yet) or does it just grab land in the hope of there being resources there later on??

[Robert Plomp]

isn't it great that the first times you play civ3 you don't make a change ?
I hate those ***** games that you play for the first time and you win immediately. After that it's "Been there done that next game"

I love it to be beaten !
And when I can finally beat Deity with 2 fingers in my nose I'm sure MP will be released

GREAT

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Even when you beat deitiy, you won't be able to do it all the time (i think ) like in civ II. This will I think be rather lucky event and not something that happens all the time.

[Jeje2]

Yeah,
I was playing a game on standard planet on warlord level as French with 7 AI.
(Had a medium size iland for myself from beginning.)

Well, it was something around 1000AD and I was constantly at war with Germans. (OK, a couple of bought peaces) I eneded my game when German got 4 of the remaining five AI's to declare war on me and coming with troops like hell.
(btw. England had been conqured earlier by Germany)

I had all the time lagged behind on research. (Used a lot of money to catch up seceral times and still was lagging like hell) Oh, and was lacking Saltpeter on my continent, so no Musketeers.

So what the HECK!!!
I hadn't been that a badboy in my game...
(Well first time ~4000B.C. Germany decalred war on me and I got England to join. After some turns I made an expensive peace with Germany and a few turns later Germany took England. But, hey They only had two cities in desert area next to Germany...)

So how much bulls**t has one to suffer on Warlord-level??
(On Diety I could belive this, but Warlord??

Well, that game went down the toilet already and now planning on going back to SMACX.

[challenge]

Your strategy didn't work; you didn't play the diplomatic system to gain friends, allies and tech; You didn't establish any major effort to defeat the Germans at the start of your war .....

So how long did it take you to learn how to play SMAC to where you could actually win? Obviously they made Civ 3 too hard.

[Peterk]

> So what the HECK!!!
> I hadn't been that a badboy in my game...

...and I'm sure you _always_ have really good reasons for attacking a computer civ???

Civ 3's about making friends, else you're a target.

[EnochF]

I'm no good at this game either. Chieftain is a challenge, Warlord is frustrating, anything higher is too difficult to even think about.

Over the weekend, I'll try some things in the editor to make the game a little more enjoyable, like giving my civ all five of the attributes... if I'm still getting my ass kicked on Warlord even then, I'll make Settlers a unique unit of my civ.

I don't care what CyberShy and Velo-whathisname say, this game is too hard, and it's no fun.

[Jeje2]

Thx for feedback.
Just to clarify a couple of responses.

challenge:
Maybe I was wrong in not making connections.
But I only knew Germans (After England was gone), the rest were to far oversees for my small ships.

=> Germans found them first, rest is history

In SMAC I don't remember having problems like this...


Peterk:
By the end of that game I had started, let's see ..., zero nill none wars myself.
(Germans are militaristic)


Enochf:
There are six civilization abilities in Civ3...

[georage]

I am playing my FIRST game on second from highest level on a random large map. I am Russia and am wailing on people! Only the Germans are close in score (260 to 350) and they are on a continent with 3 other civs so I think they will eventually get slammed. I wasted England (do nothing but create archers and post up in mountain areas near their cities and they will commit suicide!) and have the continent to myself.

Now, I am just kicking back, trading with India and China and torturing Zulus and Persians. I make more $ in one turn than anyone else has in their treasury.

I have 5 of the best 6 cities, 9 of 10 wonders, best tech, etc.

yawn

PS - Combat in this game sucks! The enemy is retarded.

[Peterk]

> Peterk:
> By the end of that game I had started, let's see ..., zero nill
> none wars myself.

hI JEJE,

I just finished a game as the Germans myself. Good fun.

I don't think that the AI will automatically pick on the human player like in Civ2. I've seen the AI totally tear one of it's own Civs to pieces very quickly.

One possibility, since you mentionned you were lagging in research: A computer civ gains an advance and now can see a new resource that only you have. Instead of waiting for you to get the advance, they decided just to go and take it by war. Especially possible if the Civ who attacked you was militaristic.
The defense is not to lag too far in research and to try and have MPP with the strongest countries.

[Jusbaummer]

As I've said before:

Don't overrate your skills in the beginning....Try chieftain first!

(no matter if it's easy, it's learning anyway)

[BenNewman]

I'm not saying I don't have issues with the Civ AI, but comparing it to a chess ai is a little unfair. Chess AIs usually look at all the legal moves available too it, tries them all out in memory and often runs compleate simulations of the rest of the game before deciding on a move for that turn. Assumung for the sake of argument there there are only 100 different moves available at a time, each look into a future possibility of the game raises the number of moves exponentialy. 1 turn is 100 moves, 2 is 10,000 and 3 is 1,000,000 so you can see how comutationaly intensive this is. Now look at Civ, lets take the worker unif for instance. A worker satnding in an empty piece of grassland has 13 moves avalible to it. it can move in 8 dirrections, stand still, irrigate, mine, plant forests of build roads. That means for every worker standing around the computer would have 13 variables if it was aproaching things from a chess like perspective. So 2 workers would mean 169 possibilities, and 3 would mean 2197. Throw into the mix a whole slew of complexities that chess doesn't have like fog of war, multiple possible victory conditions, peacetime sitting vs wartiome sitting and long range planning vs short term needs, and an AI approach like most chess games use compleatly falls down. Also, keep in mind that AIs are very time consuming to write and very computationaly expensive. Sure it might be possible to write an AI that didn't cheat at all, but would you be willing to wait a couple extra years for the game and have it take 10 minutes a turn?

[Mercury]

I've played CIV for almost 8 years. Civ1 - 3 y, and Civ2 till past week. I've kicked asses of all AI opponents on Diety level. BUT! CIV3 seemed to me too tough. All my strategy and great experience became almost unuseful. This is real challenge. Fisrst I've played chief level to get aqquainted. And I was astonished that it was hard to me. First of all - the army and war strategy. It's really new to me. I've tried a second chance. Same difficulty and it's going better. 7 opponents and 3 remained. I hadn't such feelings for a long time. I feel myself as a newbie as it was 5 years before(when I've got Civ2). It's cool. But it is tough to rebuild strategy which created for 8 years. I fell like old general of the old army standing near colonel of a new. My sword tactics is old and rusted before guns of that colonel. But it's only lyrics.
I've to learn once more. Meanwhile I'm creating a mod with Theocracy government. I've imported CTP grafics of such govt to Civ3 but have complications with civilopedy work.