Civ III is for aggressive warmongers!

[Master Marcus]

...so far after five completed games ( 3 Regent wins, 1 Monarch win and 1 Monarch loss ), 4 at average maps+ 8 civs and 1 at huge + 16 civs ( so I'm NOT talking about tiny maps+4 civs which are naturally devoted to warlord players ), I've come to the conclusion that you can play peacefully most of the game at Regent ( and less surely ) but NOT at Monarch ( can't imagine yet above ), especially if you seek NOT to win by Space Race, which is by far the easiest form of victory ( my Monarch win ).

If you try to win culturally ( good luck because you need many wonders to do that, and you don't have many Leaders, and at Monarch+ the AI get most of them even if it start building AFTER you have accumulated hundreds of shields through Palace, etc...), or by domination, or by Rank at 2050, you need to conquer a lot of AI territory. Unless a player intends to win all his civ games by Spaceship, and since I like diversity, well that means no more peaceful or hybrid strategy for every game. Sometimes you need 200+ units to sustain a world war ( some civs combined against you by mutual protection pact, and the duration of that kind of war is one of the most notable upgrades from Regent to Monarch ). Believe me, the strongest Ai civs can land in your home continent a lot of tanks squadrons via transports. The Greeks have taken 4 of my cities in a single turn....

So far in this forum, the few players telling us that they already beat the game at Deity use the vassalizing strategy and steal AI settlers in the early game. They are warmongers. We, the hybrids and peacemakers, have a lot to learn before reaching Monarch-Emperor. To the contrary of what some have said before the release, Civ III is NOT necessarily more devoted to peaceful players. Oh no. The AI is cheating, but is impressive and I don't have any major gripe less 2 things: the military overides too much the culture, and everyone seeks to reach the Space Race victory....

Please for the next tournaments, DISABLE the Space victory and only then you'll see the real champions ( I'm afraid I have much to learn and I'm not ...)

[hecose]

So far I'm only into my 3rd game of civ3, playing on Regent, but I agree with you already from my observations so far. I think what I'll do in the future is just disable the UN and Space Victory win conditions, or maybe just disable Space Victory. Space Victory is a bit anti-climax. So is UN, but I can built the UN and not have any voting (even if I know I'll surely win). Even to win culturally you'll need to do lots of conquering. So I guess in the future I'll be winning by score. (and playing on Regent)

[Karhgath]

I have to disagree on that tho. I'm around 1900 on a Emperor game on a large map with max civ. I will get a cultural victory by 2010(or somewhere around that) if my capital is not destroy or taken by an AI. I have waged a couple of wars, but mostly to help my friends, to teach a lesson to an AI, or to acquire a specific resource I couldn't get from trading. I ended most of them as soon as they finally would acknowledge my messenger.

The goal is to have a GREAT start. The start is the most important part of the game. If you are ranked in the middle, or heck, at the bottom in early game, you won't win by score for sure, UNLESS you start conquering everyone in the thid quarter of the game, depending on your score.

In Monarch and up, especially in Emperor(and probably more so on Deity), the start is the key. The best strategy now is REXing, or any variation of fast, linear expansion. Try getting past a couple of civs if possible, and encircle them and eat em with culture. Expansion and Culture(if you don't want to play a war game) are the key. I was able to corner around 3/7 of the landmass with my REXing. Sure, I was WAYYY behind in tech, but I had a lot of money, and just bought my way up the techtree. Then I started working on infrastructure and culture mostly. My capital was, from the begining, concentrating on culture. The earlier you build buildings and wonders, the more culture they give you in the long run, so that is why the early game is so important. Try getting a wonder like the Oracle early on, but build a temple first, as soon as you can, and as fast as you can. Later wonders, especially late industrial and modern, are USELESS for culture. One or two early wonder is way better.

In those kind of game, a Religious civ is VERY important. When RExing, the early your small civ can enlarge their border with a temple(and start gobbling up other cities), the better. Expansionist might be good too, but I find industrious or commercial to be the second best. If you really want to concentrate on culture, and culture alone, Scientific and Religous(Babylonian) might be the best civ for that.

Also, don't be shy about moving your palace somewhere else, and try to make it, along with the forbidden palace, cover each about half of your empire, because, if you were REXing, you probably have an elongated territory and your capital is probably at one of the far side of it, and is mostly useless there.

If you fall behind in early game, you will have trouble playing peacefully(if winning is really your goal). So, maybe it does not prove playing peacefully is not harder, but it is still feasible. Warmonger and Expansionist are not really alike, and being a peaceful expansionist is the key to win peacefully.

As for the tourney, I dunno, I'm at around 1900, now my first future tech, and they are all way behind in the tech tree, still dont have modern tanks and missing a couple of parts of the spaceship. If you start well(I was always first, or I slipped second for a while, before making everyone attack the greek =).

Another trick... play dirty in diplomacy. Make the AI do the dirty job. If someone is getting ahead of you, make everyone attack them. Usually, even with a decent tech advantage or a bigger army, 2 vs 1 AI is game over for the lone warrior. 3v1, and he's deader than dead =)

One more thing... I know we(peaceful players) used to not build any army in Civ2, we never needed it. Now, it's a different thing. If you want them to listen to you in diplomacy, for them to make good deals, etc. You must have a big culture and an, at least, average military. If they feel they can walk up anytime and conquer your cities, they won't take you seriously, even if you seem like a god to them =)

So, all in all :

1) Start GREAT in early game(and I mean, don't make a mistake, stay on top).
2) REXing baby! Don't stop until you have to, especially in huge maps, I've one time REXed until 800 AD.
3) Take a religous civ, to REX and get more culture early on.
4) Early culture is better than late culture.
5) Play dirty in diplomacy. USe other to do your job, and for god's sake, DO CHOOSE ALLIES. Being vs everyone is NOT healthy.
6) Don't be shy having an army to defend yourself and get the respect you need(even if you never use it).
7) Don't concentrate on tech early on(REX instead), set it to 0% and just buy yourself up in the techtree.
8) Manage your capitol and forbidden palace well. You can't change the forbidden palace, but you can always move the palace around.

No more are the days you could build a couple cities and win easely and peacefully like in Civ2. It's another ballgame baby!

Anyway, the game have been out for what? Not that long, so new strats and new discoveries will appear and we will find other good ways to win peacefully without REXing or making a perfect start.

[hecose]

Karhgath,

Thanks for the insightful post. I'm only in my 3rd game, so I can use a lot of those tips. I guess as I improve my gameplay more I will find it less difficult to win without being a warmonger. Got to play more, more, more.

[Ghengis Brom]

I'm playing the tourny right now. I'm at 240 A.D. and have about 12 cities. I've already wiped out the Persians, had too, they moved in too close my territory to early. Looks like I'm gonna be taking out the Chinese next, either militarily or with culture. I'm also going to have teach the Aztecs a lesson by taking a couple of their cities, they keep sending escorted settlers into my territory. So far I've been able to keep them out but something tells me the AI is about to go ape-sh*t on me so I've been building Bowmen and Horsemen like crazy.

Me at work ------->

[Master Marcus]

Good post, Karhgath. Huge maps +16 civs is a good testing ground for peaceful builders that's for sure, but on average+8 civs at Monarch+ , that's another story.Btw my sole Monarch defeat was with the Babylonians.....so I guess I have much to learn, but I was never able to trade the Iron I never had in my early territory, so early war and vassalazing was out of question. What do you do if you can't have the Iron and/or Horses??? Start another game......

At Emperor, how can you build a great wonder??? aside using a leader or accumulating shields...

[Karhgath]

I usually play on large and not huge map, huge map are just too long to play, large map are the best in my opinion. Why do you need iron or horses so much? The goal is to have an average army, but you don't need to have swordmen and knights, beside, longbowmen are much cheaper than knight. Just stay peacefully in your corner and try not angering anyone =) You don't need an army and can still REX peacefully, so Iron and Horses are not mandatory(but I agree it's nice to have pikemen, but musketeers aren't that far anyway, but you must have saltpeter then =)

At Emperor, I was able to build the Oracle first... I started with ceremonial burial, and my first tech was mysticism. I guess I also had a lucky starting point, but it's not impossible. There are a lot of early wonders, so you might be lucky. Also, a trick I have, since everyone tries to race you, is to start on a wonder you don't want(or the Palace, if it's not in your capitol). That way, they think you are building another one. One thing is sure tho, with 12+ Civs, it's becoming harder and harder to build an early wonder... I guess I was just lucky. Also, instead of irrigating, mine the grassland around your city building the wonder, and try maximazing shields while keeping at least 1 food to grow.

Also, I realized that, the higher score the AI has, the more wonder he will build(dunno if it can be confirmed by anyone). So, by staying on the top of the chart, you probbaly have a slighter higher % of being successful. Also, DO NOT trade tech that you are building a wonder out of, altough early in the game, they probably research faster than you anyway.

[Garth Vader]

You need Iron for railroads and factories.

[War4ever]

if your going to build one wonder in the ancient era with a leader....on any map siae but the larger the better...personally i play standard alot..game is too slow and ai turns are too slow as well

BUILD the PYRAMIDS.... if the game as your saying is all based on your early expansion then this is the best wonder out there and will save you upkeep on those granaries....

money wisely spent on temples and barracks while you target your first civ...

Pyramids wins me every game i build it......and if you have kickin food tiles as well then your just going to roll through the ai

[Cian McGuire]

I used to be of that mindset, especially in Civ 2, but now with the harshness of unhappiness and the competitive edge needed I find the Oracle is the better of the two. It allows one to keep more proles happy, increasing the usefulness of temples, and as a result making the build city -> temple combo even more potent.

I usually have one city kicking out spearmen for defense of new cities and just have them immediately begin building temples.

[Comrade Tribune]

So far, the game seems stacked against the Perfectionist.

I think it should be possible to win (or at least survive) with just 5-6 cities, but I don´t think it is, at least above Regent.

Switzerland is (arguably) the most successful nation of the Earth (per-capita-income, quality-of-life etc.), and they don´t have more than 3 or 4 cities (in Civ scale).

It should be possible to be Switzerland!

[John Paul Jones]

In support of your argument (Civ III is for aggressive warmongers!) also keep in mind there's no other way to rush-build wonders other than to be engaged in battle almost every turn of the game (in the hope of spawning great leaders).

[Karhgath]

I must agree on that, there should be other ways to get leaders... maybe with culture? Your culture gives you a certain chanc of 'attracting' a leader. That would help us, lowly peaceful fanatics =)

I disagree on the pyramid. Usually, I NEVER build granaries. Your cities grow too fast with them, especially in Monarch+, and happiness sticks its ugly head in. Anyway, you grow real fast to 6 or 12 and you are stuck there until industrial age. If you go for a peaceful win, build the Oracle, it gives you a much needed hapiness boost, and it gives a lot of culture. Growing too fast is never good, in my opinion. A big cities means either more maintenance(for the hapiness buildings), or less income/shields because you have a lot of entertainer, or less income if you rise your hapiness level, at the expense of income or science.


Also, yes, you need iron for railroads. In early industrial age, if you did REX(and you should), you have a good chance of having iron, if not, by then, you should have one or 2 good friends that could trade with you, and an excess of resources/luxuries, since you REXed.


Well, it's possible to build a 'successful' civ like switzerland, it is easely possible. BUT, they could never win by space race, or culturally, or by military, or by diplomaty, or even by score. If your goal is NOT to win, it is feasible. Heck, I did it often in Civ2, and I tried one in Civ3 and I was able to make a pretty nice successful country, but very low on the score scale tho, which is realistic.

[Master Marcus]

Why do you need iron and horses so much?.// Longbowman are much cheaper than knight. -Kargharth

I disagree with your general feeling on this, since I find the Knight so far to be the most useful unit during the short and sporadic wars I wage in the Middle Age. One of the very few kind of units undefeated yet by the AI in my games, the retreat ability when badly injured is worth the basic cost of 70 next to the Longbowman's 40 which has only 1 defense and 1 move (4-1-1). Station a 4-3-2 Knight in a city or hills/mountain and the AI will hardly be in position to defeat it at that stage of the game. Generally the average player has already some cities producing more than 10 shields, so producing a 7 turn unit you rush build after 3-4 turns is not hurting more my economy than producing a 4 turn Longbowman ( anyway I get Invention later than Chivalry, but that is a variable depending of the player's gameplay and agenda ).

On the other hand I like your idea of a cultural Leader. This should be worked on for the expansion ( if there is to be one ).
You implicitly say also that in order to achieve any kind of victory, the player must be aggressive and this is realistic. This is effectively realistic if you want domination, rank, conquest, BUT NOT realistic if you want cultural victory, UN election, or even Space Race ( for that one you should be hybrid ). A non-expansionist peaceful player who manages well a small but strong empire of 10 cities or less should be realistically able to achieve a cultural victory or be elected, which is ALMOST impossible at Monarch+ for the average player.

[MustPost]

In the beginning of the game I would say luxorys are more importent than stategic recources. I don't find that I really need horses until I get knights. Iron is nice to have for swordsmen in the begining, but not absolutly nessicry.

[Deathray]

Firstly: what is REXing?

Secondly: I prefer the longbowman/musketman approach to building knights. I also tend to not bother with chivalry and get military tradtion instead. I tech quite fast in the middle ages.

Thirdly: How on Earth do you win a cultural victory? I have managed at most 25,000 points in one city. And that was with about half of the wonders in the game...

[Karhgath]

I'm usually not aggressive, so expansionist != aggressive. WIth a small 10 cities empire, it should be very very hard to win by Space or UN, I mean, who would vote for Switzerland to be the world-leader, even if they are very friendly and all?

Also, it is theorically possible, with only one city, to win by culture... you must build a couple of high-culture early wonders. However, it is harder and harder to buil wonders as the difficulty level rise, and you need a big empire to research or get a lot of money. This is the big problem, preventing you from winning by culture with a small empire. So yes, there is somewhat of an imbalance there.

Also, I agree with MustPost... I forgot to talk about it, but you must, no, need to have as much luxury as possible, and as early as possible. Also connect all your cities(that should have been taken care of by REXing anyway). For a peaceful game, you DON'T need most of the resources, except iron and coal. You say I am playing agressively, but at the same time, you tell me that you want knights, so, go figure =) Also, I usually NEVER research optional tech, beside Republic/Democacy, unless I can buy it from someone. Chivalry and Military Tradition are optional, so I never usually have Knights or Cavalry.

Also, you imply that 'dual' units, used both as offense and defense, are good... in my opinion, they ARE NOT. I never use 'dual' units. They are usually either a little bit worse at defense or offense, and equal at the other. For me, every points count. I always split the 2 : offensive and defensive. When I attack, I bring both of them, the best defenders and the best attackers. That's why I don't usually need Knights, and anyway, I'm rarely agressive(but that doesn't mean I don't field an army, hehe). Since you can get musketman nearly at the same time as chivalry(only one tech later), and that it is not an optional tech, I usually never research chivalry. Since all defensive units can be upgraded up to mech inf, it is a lot better to split both offensive and defensive units. All offensive units are stuck at one time where they can't upgrade. (Swordman, Longbowman and Cavalry for example).

As for REXing, do a search on this forum, you'll understand =) The idea is trying to keep up with the fast expansion of the AI. It stands for Rapid Early eXpansion(REX). Dunno who cornered that name first, but it wasn't me =) Some see it as another ICS(Infinite City Sleaze, in Civ2), but I don't think it is, the only thing that it does is making you able to be neck to neck to the AI for expansion, and a good early game.

[Samudragupt]

The only problem with all these strategies REXing , VASSALizing etc. is that
they take the fun out of the game - at least for me. You see I start thinking of - So if I really were the Indians at the dawn of time should I REX or should I VASSAL.. . That kind of does it for me . But on the flip side I am yet to win at Emperor, though I win easily enough on Monarch. Hmmmmm maybe aI will REX.... just a little bit .Not too much or one loses historical flavor

[Master Marcus]

As I said, that depends of the gameplay style inherent to each player. I'm still a peaceful hybrid expansionist even if I build a strong army: I want short wars to be successful, so I'll need numerous and strong units and they serve me at the same time as a detterent to prevent unexpected wars by aggressive AI ( the coding in Civ III in that matter seems to be well done ).

True: the tech rate in late Middle Ages is faster, and Cavalry is the end of horses upgrades, but still the strongest attacker you'll have until the end of Industrial ( Tanks, Marines ). Upgrading a Knight to Cavalry costs only 20 gold.....I like using that and more artillery units than before, more helpful than I originally thought.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Karhgath
Also, you imply that 'dual' units, used both as offense and defense, are good... in my opinion, they ARE NOT.

Some are. Examples: Bowman, Legion.