Is it possible to play Civ3 for fun?

MisterMuppet · November 27, 2001, 05:45

In fact is it possible to beat Civ3 without having to know various economic principles, or complex mathmatical equations.
I had downloaded the Apolyton tournament 1 saved game only to lose repeatedly in many entertaining ways. Having only played on Warlord before, I therefore turned to the Civ3 Help forum only to find it full of these complicated mathmatical concepts.
Is this how Civ3 was designed? The only way to win is to have a deep understanding of the underlying game mechanics?
I understand that it is not Quake, and I do find Civ3 fun to play. I just don't win much.

PapaLenin · November 27, 2001, 05:51

Dude you understand it all wrong. Civ3 is simpliest and most primitive game in the world. It's just all who are sending those mathematical and economical concepts to try make the game looking some complex equation.

Simpleton · November 27, 2001, 06:08

Yah, don't worry about all that technocrap. Just play it and have fun. I always played the other Civ's (1 + 2) for fun. There are some who take it a bit too far, in my opinion, with all the odd combat calculations, deity winning strategies or ways to cheat. I myself never found the need to play anything harder than King on Civ2. It wasn't because I didn't think I could win at emperor or diety but I found those games too intense, less fun and more scripted. When you play at the highest levels you have less freedom to build your civ because you have to follow a set strategy just to survive.
I would just play a difficulty you find challenging but fun. If you have any problems winning or doing something go to the help or strategy forums.

Baloo · November 27, 2001, 06:24

IMO Civ game is always been simple so that's why people can readily enjoy it. If we want to delve ourselves on minutiae issues we ought to buy Europa Universalis type of game.

I like both type of games in different occassions. If I have free time I play complex games like EU and hard core flight simulators. The rest of the times I play Civ 3 and (gasp) multiplayer FPS.

The next installation of Civ should have the option to make the game complex (adding government micro-management like some people have suggested) or not (like what it's now). I like both so I'm really Jekkyl and Hyde

MisterMuppet · November 27, 2001, 06:42

I'm glad it isn't just me.

Simpleton · November 27, 2001, 06:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Baloo

I like both type of games in different occassions. If I have free time I play complex games like EU and hard core flight simulators.

I actually bought EU but never played more than an hour. It just seemed too involved. I normally like those types of games too but at this time I'm just not interested. In fact, I haven't even played Civ3 that much. I just haven't been in the mood. Oh well I know the urge will return and then it will be Civ3 for 2 months straight!!!

Grumbold · November 27, 2001, 07:21

EU is at its worst for the first few hours, thanks to a manual that concentrates on history rather than game concepts and a tutorial that does not succeed. If you get past that hurdle, the game becomes really pretty straightforward (pretty much like Civ does).

I play both for fun and have no intention of learning how to perfectly ICS or REX or any other TLA in order to play Civ 3 on Deity. I'd rather just play a good game on a difficulty level I enjoy. At the moment Monarch is suiting me admirably. I have one friend who takes pleasure in analysing all games mathmatically and playing to the highest probablilities. It may float his boat but it doesn't make for interesting conversation

Kekkonen · November 27, 2001, 08:10

Winning (or rather, "winning") in Civ3 doesn't really affect the fun factor much for me. The absolutely most fun I've had playing Civ3 so far was the first time I played it all the way through and lost -- Cleopatra launched her space ship while I was still researching Laser. I played the French, and I had numerous small skirmishes with the Russians through the ages (none of which were initiated by me) and eventually a full-scale World War (which I _did_ start as a preventive measure once I got a few tanks) that eventually involved everybody on my continent: France, Germany, and England, the French-led "Axis", against the alliance of Russia and China. Nothing much came out of that war (I was more advanced technically than the Russians, but they had HORDES of riflemen and a few infantry -- why does that situation sound familiar?), but it was lots of fun.

Grumbold · November 27, 2001, 11:00

Yep, I agree. My first game had a world war break out as four of us rushed to complete our spaceships. I had a nuke/armor convoy sailing off to "persuade" the French to back down when it became clear I had the 2 tech lead needed to build the final components. Watching my spaceship blast off while everyone around me was scrapping was a fantastic feeling

quinalla · November 27, 2001, 11:10

Yes, it is definately possible to play Civ 3 for fun, even if "fun" means not worrying about all the math and code behind the game. If those things do interest you, then you can have "fun" trying to figure them out as some people that post here do. I think it is intersting to see what people discover, but I probably wouldn't try to figure that stuff out myself when I could be beating the pants off the AI or struggling to keep up with it.

-quinalla

mr.buddylee · November 27, 2001, 11:33

I play just for fun.
If I played trying to win every time I would never play the game again because I've only won 1 time.

Everyone has a different idea of fun though. Some people think that it is fun to figure out the formulas and then use them to beat the A.I.

On the other hand, I think puttering around until I'm strong enough to take over the world is fun. Course, thats only happened once, but it was fun!

BTW, what is EU?

Chevin · November 27, 2001, 12:08

Just my personal opinion on this topic from a warmongers point of view. !!!please remember this is a warmongers point of view and is not the popular point of view or you might take it is a flame!!!

I think Civ III is horribly complex and decidedly antiwar. Infact it seems Civ III has been designed to deter players from war/conqure tactics. The war wearines and corruption make long protracted wars impossible.

Since long bloody wars are the "FUN" for a warmonger, then I do agree it is not possible to play this game and have fun. You can alter your tactics of course. Fight shorter goal based wars. Hit your target cities hard and fast and then plead for peace. But this isn't how a warmonger would do it.

It was easier to be bloodthirsty in Civ II.

Wolfgang76 · November 27, 2001, 12:11

Most of the time I just kick it on Warlord as its fun. I'm not a diehard gamer anylonger (job, wife, kids) so I just dont have the time to work on improving. Frankly though my favorite game was one in which I was losing badly only to pull out a surprise win by launching my star ship just before the french would have won a Diplomatic victory (canceled ship build to see the results).

I guess I am too peacefull as I keep getting kicked around by the French in most of my games.

Eitherway, throw out the math. The more I try to understand it the more confusing it gets as I dont think they know either. Play the game how you want to play.

2cents.

Magician · November 27, 2001, 13:06

Just pick the level that fit you most and start enjoying the game! No mathematics, no analysis, no models, no REX, no ICS, no..... just have fun with it!

Those mathematical analysis or models just have nothing to do with the game. They are just devised by the hardcore Civ fans who want to know every little bits about the game.. I mostly just ignore them all..

Grumbold · November 27, 2001, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by mr.buddylee
BTW, what is EU?

Europa Universalis is a Renaissance period game set on the real world map with almost every Nation/State/Province depicted to a reasonable level of detail. You can take over any historical country (8 big ones like Spain by default but an easy text edit will allow you to play any that you want). If you have a look in the 'other games' section of Apolyton you will find some posts discussing it. If they interest you, I would recommend waiting and buying EU2 which is due out very soon. It should be even better and much easier to get in to.

Paradox are also the shining example of how we would like all companies to handle customer support. They have been discussing the game with the players and making requested changes on a regular basis even months after the game has shipped. The features they couldn't squeeze into another patch have gone in to EU2 instead....

Sytass · November 27, 2001, 14:02

Yes, indeed great support. I remember (before the US release) I had problems with EU after a certain patch, causing the game to not run any more on my then old machine. Paradox went to great lengths fixing this problem for me.

Not to mention what permissions they gave for the ingenious "Improved Great Campaign" patch.

Certainly a rolemodel for other companies. And I cannot wait to get my hands on EU2.

wotan321 · November 27, 2001, 14:14

Chevin states:

Quote:

I think Civ III is horribly complex and decidedly antiwar. Infact it seems Civ III has been designed to deter players from war/conqure tactics. The war wearines and corruption make long protracted wars impossible.

Thats a good point, its certainly not set up for warring like in Civ2. But really, in Civ2, you were at war the last 2/3 of the game in every game....

I have found you must plan out your battles better in Civ3. You get to Democracy then build up this huge force. You plan out where you want to go and what you want to do. You move forces into position. Diplomacy sets up your target.... then whammo! You gotta attack with overwhelming numbers and get the job done quickly. You take the 2 or 3 IMPORTANT cities or locales, then squeeze some tribute out of your foe to get peace, dig in and get ready to do it again later after the war weariness dies down, your units heal, and you plan out the next phase.... its more complicated sure.... but also more fun....

...and as for Civ3 discouraging all war... the fact you must win a battle with an army to get a couple wonders shows that you MUST fight sometime. In Civ3, if you want to be a warmonger... you gotta be a crafty warmonger....

Rosacrux · November 27, 2001, 14:44

In Civ2 I used to be a peaceful builder and I even have dig into the complex strategies (ICS mostly - but that ain't that "complex"

) so I could win on deity.

Well, now I am older (haven't actually played Civ2 for a period of almost three years) I have a wife and my job is becoming more and more demanding, so I really don't have the time and incentive to dive into the deeper aspects of any game (I barely manage to play 12-16 hours a week, damned

).

So, I am not going to try deity (or even emperor) for a long time. I have won my first two games in Regent and now I am trying on the new improved huge world map in Monarch. That's gonna be a looooong game

As for War in Civ3, well... here are my 2 cents:

wotan321 hits bullseye with his post. That's precisely what this game is all about. You can't just go out and conquer everything and everybody (like you could do in Civ2) you have to fight with some specific goals in mind, just as - surprise, surprise - in the real world.

Wether it is that last depot of coal on the continent, or those good placed cities on the shore, or the necessity to reduce a civs power so you can compete in equal (or unequal in your favour

) terms with it in the future, you have to set specific goals and concentrate your efforts into accomplishing those.

You can't just amasse a horde of tanks and wreack havoc on everybody-everything, without worrying what comes next, it requires thinking, planning ahead, good organizing and some strategy to get what you want.

Total domination is not out of question (well, it is out of question in huge maps

) but it's just sooo hard now. It takes time, planning, resting periods and also some true human values as cunning, greed and backstabbing.

True human values, as you can tell

If I didn't like to get into that kind of trouble... well, I'd go for some good'ole "click-fest-RTS" - but I am not really in a mood for those.

TheDarkside · November 27, 2001, 15:26

Civ3

Whats up with those equations and how do they help anything? SO I use limits and derivatives to figure out my odds in winning the lotto, does that mean I'm gonna win it now? Civ3 is fun because it's simple to play, easy to get into- sometimes hard to exit! If you have basic common sense, you will do fine in Civ3. Just dont venture into the realm of deity unless you want to deal with game mechanics, like other paople said, which is BORING. It's only one notch above playing a computer in Tic-Tac-Toe.

EU2

But until Civ3 comes out with a patch to fix airpower, I'm playing this game! This game was released 2 weeks ago in my area, and last week the first patch came out! Talk about a dedicated development team! This patch wasn't necessary to play either, sort of how this Civ3 patch I'm waiting for is. EU2 does have a high learning curve but I think it's replayability beats Civ3, why? Well because Civ3's modding support is worse then the original Civ, while EU2's modding support is fantastic. All the country data, province data, leader data- everything is easily accessible via semi-colon delimmited database files and text files. Meanwhile Civ3 may have a nice looking editor, it's usefulness dosent go far at all- most of it is merely editting a simple flag to turn things on/off!

G.A · November 27, 2001, 15:42

Airpower hmmm... how come I just win every time before they even think about building bombers?

Probably cause I`m playing for fun too. Also I intentionally try to NEVER do what I did in previous game. This means absolutely no set strats

Now I`m near the end of a game, in which I have 6 cities, and a big science lead

But no time to finish the SS. Only UN. So, unlike Civ2, it`s 1960, and I still don`t know if I will win!

G.A · November 27, 2001, 15:48

Oh, and a war in Civ3 is much more fun than in Civ2. In Civ2 all wars were boring and one-sided - just swarm them. Here you need some long term strategy in them...

Rasbelin · November 27, 2001, 16:03

I just don't get the point. Why wouldn't it be impossible to play Civ III for fun? At least that's why I'm doing that. Or is someone geting paid for doing that (expect the guys on Firaxis and review makers)?

Baloo · November 27, 2001, 16:04

Yeah, EU/EU2: Historical Empire Simulator. Civ/Civ2/Civ3 : Empire Simulator, by my own discretion.

CyberGnu · November 27, 2001, 16:39

G.A., how do you figure?

The weak AI, the (relative to civ2) weaker defenders, the unwillingness of the AI to upgrade his old spearmen to mech. inf., the diplomacy, the use of combat settlers... It all makes it easier to defeat the AI in Civ 3 than in Civ2.

Sure, a long term WW1 war is a lot harder now, but you don't have to do it anymore, since the AI is happy to sue for peace when you take half his empire in one turn...

Baloo, et al.: I was a beta tester for EU, and I think we betatested the game for over a year... Going through at least 30 revisions. Compare to civ3, which was betatested for at most five minutes.

knott · November 27, 2001, 16:41

My problem with EU was that it was only one possible way to play it. And it was a way to easy of course

But if Peter Englund liked it, i like it

Allemand · November 27, 2001, 16:41

My problem with EU2 is they don't tell you all the rules, so I waste too much time trying to do something that's not possible. Civ3 is much better in this respect. The two manuals give you everything you need to know to play the game.

Civ3 is fun at the first two levels (and I like to play on a huge map). At Regent level it gets much tougher and the levels above that require you to endure a lot of pain, even though you find ways to win.

I think military domination on a huge map is possible, especially in the mid-game period, but don't expect faraway cities to provide much for you because corruption is too high. Usually, the warmonger will be better off taking just a few cities for bases in each area, and razing the others. After the AI gets railroads and tanks, you're better off to make peace or just fight limited wars.

The game is not as much fun for people who like to sit back and build an empire, without fighting a war until late in the game. I did this in Civ II, with very good results. In Civ3, you will not be able to stay far ahead in research, and sooner or later the AI will force you into a war.

G.A · November 27, 2001, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
G.A., how do you figure?

The weak AI, the (relative to civ2) weaker defenders, the unwillingness of the AI to upgrade his old spearmen to mech. inf., the diplomacy, the use of combat settlers... It all makes it easier to defeat the AI in Civ 3 than in Civ2.

Sure, a long term WW1 war is a lot harder now, but you don't have to do it anymore, since the AI is happy to sue for peace when you take half his empire in one turn...

Taking half his empire in one turn... Could be easy for a warmongerish player, but what if I don`t upgrate my units until the enemy is at the gate too?

Besides that, they happily build new units.

And I figure, as a war has different objectives now. In Civ 2 you`d go to war to destroy only. Now there is a variety of reasons, and destroying the enemy completely is not always the best option.

G.A · November 27, 2001, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Allemand
The game is not as much fun for people who like to sit back and build an empire, without fighting a war until late in the game. I did this in Civ II, with very good results. In Civ3, you will not be able to stay far ahead in research, and sooner or later the AI will force you into a war.

As such a player, I have to disagree totally.
Money can buy you the science lead. Have I already mentioned my current game with 6 cities (one of them 1-shielder on the other edge of the map), a huge science lead, and AIs fighting each other for 100 years, and never trying to touch me (except occasional MPP offers, but I`m not stupid

). Only one downside in this - in that war they destroyed all their roads, and thus they can`t sell me coal, which they happily did before

CyberGnu · November 27, 2001, 16:53

Allemand: Hear, Hear!

Allemand · November 27, 2001, 17:06

G.A., I disagree with your disagreement (is this possible?).

My experience is that in the late game (after 1800) the AI civs will always be able to trade techs and catch up with your early tech lead, no matter how far ahead you got. You may be able to stay one or two techs ahead, but that's it.

We may be playing different games, though. I turn off diplomatic and space ship victory, and always play a huge map.

I've noticed the AI never seems to upgrade units, which could be a major disadvantage in a war of attrition. I always iqnore their outdated ships, just destroying the more modern ones. Their older ships don't do enough damage to worry about, and they must cost them something to maintain, right?