Just too hard

[Muso]

I'm not someone that moans a lot in forums but I can't help myself in this case..

I've just got through with playing my 6th full game of CivIII and I'm still just as far away from winning as ever.

In this last game I had no coal, so no railroads.. no other Civ I had contact with had coal either.. so here I am in 1950 with no railways.

With CivII I could win, now and again, on the 4th highest difficulty level. More often than not I played on the middle level.

Sometimes, just for fun, I'd play on easy. It wasn't much of a challenge but it was great fun.. It lived up to it's name "easy" I got quite some pleasure out of wiping out the Civilizations that had scorned me in the earlier years.

With CivIII, even on easy.. I just can't win. I'm not one of these technical players that has every tech advance mapped out. I just play really.. with a few "must have" advances in mind.. and still I lose all the time, in CivIII.

Last game I buried my head, made sure I had no wars, signed protection pacts with whoever I had to and got on with major research. The lay of the land was good, my cities were strong and still I ended up in 4th place (my best position yet, but still somewhat disapointing!)

Playing for 6 hours without a war and still losing while being years behind technologically is depressing..

In none of my games has any Civ got anywhere near space. The game I just played it was 2010 before I even got to research flight, and I didn't see any aircraft from anyone else!

I'm just a casual gamer really.. can't be arsed with the maths of it all, but if I'm playing something on easy level I expect to be able to win after some 30-40 hours of playing.

If there's something I'm missing then someone please tell me.. even better, put it in the manual..

For me, well, I've about had enough of being beaten whichever way I try to play.

Getting insulted by the computer players is only gratifying if you know your gonna kick their butt later on.. it ain't no fun when you have to take it on the chin.. again and again and again...

It seems to me that the only thing the computer judges in CivIII is the size of the empire.. which just stinks.. Why should I fart around with hundreds of towns building bloody granery's all through the ages.. Surely my 12-20 cities building factories are worth more than that!?

Anyway, rant over.. I wouldn't mind if I was getting these results on a mid level game.. but on easy.. well, it just sucks.. or, at least, I do..








"

[star mouse]

Some things to remember:

* Play a map that suits your play style.
* At the start of the game, expand, expand, expand as fast as you can. Don't be scared of having cities with 1 and 2 pop all over the map at the start. The AI is doing this, too.
* Culture is the key. Good culture gives better stuff from the AI, and has other benefits.
* A tech lead can be disadvantageous if you lack a needed resource. If you find a resource that you lack, trade tech with the AI that has surpluses of that resource until they can trade that resource to you. If you have something they want, all the better.
* Trade with the AI often. Don't be scared to trade tech. Offer a tech to the AI, and you might get a sweet deal. Giving tech away for free can make an AI happy.
* Build improvements that help you get tech faster. These are libraries, universities, marketplaces, banks, etc.

[Raleigh]

Any game with a 200+ page manual is not meant to be won quickly even on easy. Easy does not mean automatic. Hang in there until you adapt your strategies. I play to have fun too, so I don't crunch numbers and strategies either.

I'm on my 4th game and it is EXTREMELY uncertain who will win, even though I am #2 militarily, economically, and culturally and on par technologically. In fact, I projected that I would lose to the Iroquois eventually, so I engineered a war with him and the rest of the world which was NOT easy. I couldn't persuade anyone to war with him for any amount of money. So, I mutual defensed my weakest neighbor who shares a continent with the . Then I declared war on him, dragging in my poor ally. Then with 2-1, I was able to bribe another nation (with a tremednous amount of money, 2 luxuries and a tech) to war with him. After that, #3 ally was easier to bribe, and the other 2 practially begged to get into the feeding frenzy.

Clever huh? Actually, after some early defeats the Iroquois are still kicking butt, so this war will go any which way. All I can say is that all my neighbors are democracies are are laboring under a war and are mobilzing which slows down their culture and probably their science expenses, etc. Meanwhile, I am monarchy still sailing forward without too many problems. Also, in 20 turns my #2 city should have enough culture to win (producing almost 50 per turn!).

This game is so full of surprise and excitement. Maybe I am not good enough to be bored with it

[Bubba_B]

Originally posted by star mouse
Some things to remember:

* Play a map that suits your play style.
* At the start of the game, expand, expand, expand as fast as you can. Don't be scared of having cities with 1 and 2 pop all over the map at the start. The AI is doing this, too.
* Culture is the key. Good culture gives better stuff from the AI, and has other benefits.
* A tech lead can be disadvantageous if you lack a needed resource. If you find a resource that you lack, trade tech with the AI that has surpluses of that resource until they can trade that resource to you. If you have something they want, all the better.
* Trade with the AI often. Don't be scared to trade tech. Offer a tech to the AI, and you might get a sweet deal. Giving tech away for free can make an AI happy.
* Build improvements that help you get tech faster. These are libraries, universities, marketplaces, banks, etc.

Good points for winning the game, and remember this is not Civ 2. I got my arse kicked playing my first game on Chieftain like a Civ 2 game.

one point to add: Plan your wars carefully, short desisive wars are the only way to go in Civ 3.

[Simpleton]

Yes, this is a much more difficult game than Civ1,2 or SMAC even on the beginning difficulties. I'm no expert and I am just trying to flesh out the nuances of the game myself so I can't offer any playing advice yet. However, I have a suggestion. Try playing on a small world with many islands. You then expand island by island without the computer hemming you in. The computer also expands slower when it has to worry about colonizing all the islands. I had a fairly easy game when I played on this type of map.

[Easy Rhino]

I've got my only two games, and they're still in progress, but I'll back up that it's hard.

The NEED to trade. The NEED to maintain road networks. The fact that it isn't always obvious if a resource is holding you back.

The thinking it deeper than I would prefer.

ER

[Akka]

Originally posted by Simpleton
Yes, this is a much more difficult game than Civ1,2 or SMAC even on the beginning difficulties. I'm no expert and I am just trying to flesh out the nuances of the game myself so I can't offer any playing advice yet. However, I have a suggestion. Try playing on a small world with many islands. You then expand island by island without the computer hemming you in. The computer also expands slower when it has to worry about colonizing all the islands. I had a fairly easy game when I played on this type of map.

Civ 3 is more difficult than its predecessor, but the real point is that there is not an "easy" level. Even Chieftain gives you an idea of what the Regent level will be. So it's hard to start, but once you get the idea and know how to beat the Chieftain level, you probably can take the Regent level as well. Not a very wide range of difficulty level I think. And the "easy" level is definitely NOT easy for people who just start at Civ 3.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Civ 3 is more difficult than its predecessor, but the real point is that there is not an "easy" level. Even Chieftain gives you an idea of what the Regent level will be. So it's hard to start, but once you get the idea and know how to beat the Chieftain level, you probably can take the Regent level as well. Not a very wide range of difficulty level I think. And the "easy" level is definitely NOT easy for people who just start at Civ 3.

I'm going to have to play more games to really see if the levels are similar in difficulty. The games I've played have been on the same level so I don't have much to compare. It would be too bad if there wasn't much difference. It was great in Civ2 because if you wanted an relaxed game you could play chieftain or prince but if you wanted it to be more intense you could just crank it up to king or emperor. There was definitely a difference between the levels.

[dannyevilcat]

I'm not trying to brag or anything, I mean it IS just a game and all, but when I bought the game, I heard how much tougher it was (and it is), so I started off playing Warlord level, and things were going pretty neck and neck for a while. But then I discovered how useful aliances are now, and if you play them off one another, you easily get the upper hand. At one point I had broken my opponents' backs so completely, there was simply no challenge left in it. So I moved up to Regent, and even that isn't *too* hard, but I like that there are no advantages either way.

I find avoiding wars actually prevents you from succeeding. Just keep pumping out units during war, DON'T BE AFRAID TO PICK FIGHTS and eventually you'll gain the advantage even with a smaller total army at the start of it. War may slow your own progress, but when you keep capturing their cities and having powerful neighbours joining your side, only to reverse the alliance back on them one by one on those who gained the most after the 20 turns are up, then when you make peace you're standing that much taller than them. At least that's what I've found. Mind you, I don't use democracy.

The biggest thing I've found, personally, is that I enjoy dealing with other civs now, rather than just sending their emissaries away like I did in Civ2 because I knew they were just going piss me off. And definitely trade with them. I used to always hoarde my techs before.

[gremalkin]

I have found that once you have expanded to your nearest neighbour, a nice clinical early war is the way to go.. Take them out comlpetely and you will have way more territory than anyone else.. Plus with a military civ you tend to get great leaders. I got about 6 in my last game.. Be careful where you build you forbidden palace though..

[Special_Olympic]

Hmmmm, I really haven't had any problem winning on the easy level even though I've never played a civ game.

You've got to get some warriors out scouting and make sure you have iron and horses early. Then kill the nearest civ with swordsman and horseman. After that move on to the next closest civ and wipe out what is convienient.

All the while, look for the best spots and make sure to get some settlers there.

You should have around 6-10 cities now and from there it's simple because the AI is so pathetic.

[vihutuo]

Some tips

1. If you are not at war, trade all your iron and saltpeter even if you have only one source.

2. Make roads to your neighbouring civ as soon as you can so that you can trade.

3. Research Polytheism,Monotheism,Education etc which the ai civs dont give priority to. Then exchange techs with one civ and sell it to the others.

4. When two ai civs are at war, keep your settlers ready so that you can build cities whenever any city is razed. That way you can expand without going to war.

[Asmodeus]

Hi all,

This is my first post on this forum although I've read a lot of the threads.

I can agree that this game is hard, but then I admit a lot of my difficulties have been self-inflicted. Firstly I think you must try and erase all those Civ2 habits and start fresh as a total newbie on this one as I've made a number of 'well it worked in Civ2' strategic errors.

I've played about 4 full games to completion on Warlord level, standard or large maps. I lost three of them (in two of them I was wiped out completely, the other I came about 5th) and the other I won in a most unexpected way, I had no idea before it happened that I could win the game at all. Every game plays totally differently so I think 'adaptability' is the key to success.

In my only victory I was playing as the Japanese on a large map with about 5 continents. I was in a comfortable postion on 2 main land masses and right the way through to the late industrial era there was almost no war at all. There was fierce competion for Wonders as usual but everyone seemed to be trading and getting along just fine.

By this stage I was somewhat behind in the technology race as I'd invested heavily in expansion for the previous 500 years or so. I'd managed to get the Lighthouse and my Galleys found a lovely unpopulated and unexplored continent out alone in the sea and bristling with resources - and no one elses Galleys could reach it. So with the theme from '1492' resounding, I sent waves of settlers and soldiers to claim it before the others could develop Caravels. A terrific stroke of luck.

But everything got nasty in the late 1800's. As soon as everyone needed Oil it became desperate. The mightily powerful (numero uno) Persian empire, desperate for resources and trapped on the largest continent with 4 other races, declared war on India, another power house. That set off a chain reaction of Mutual Defence Pacts that turned that one attack into a World War of epic proportions. The seas roared with cannon fire and countless Cavalry units charged to their deaths in human wave assaults. I was somewhat taken aback by this as I'd not had any war since the ancient era and even that was brief.

Worse still I had a democracy and relatively small but modern army. This meant that it would be hard for me to quickly force a victory and also hard for me to quell my own people if the switch to Communism became necessary. Anyway I began building units but too late, persian tanks and infantry landed on my 'new' continent and sacked two cities. I was surprised and appalled that the Persians didn't occupy them, just burnt them to the ground. My remaining forces on that land managed to defeat the invaders but the loss of 2 big cities as well as quite a few defending units was a serious death-blow to my war effort. Anarchy broke out in my empire (in about 20 cities!) and I had no choice but to switch to communism and kiss goodbye to the tech race. But my small army (as I feared) could not stamp out all the protesters and corruption became intollerable.

I almost despaired of winning at this point and then suddenly the French built the United Nations and immediately the election was held and (much to Frances annoyance) I won the vote! I couldn't believe it. Just as well though as I think I would have suffered a humiliating defeat if that war continued any longer.

In short, be dynamic in your strategy, never give up hope and if all else fails try a different race, the game plays very different depending whether you are Expansionist/Religeous etc.

[Cookie Monster]

Muso,


Check out Vel's strategy guide in the strategy section of this forum. It is really helping my game alot.

Also you definately have to break yourself from bad civ2 habits as those old strategies just don't work in civ3. The key to having a chance to win this game is rapid early expansion. Build settlers like crazy!

Hang in there! I'm just as frustrated as you are with this game. But I love civ3!

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Asmodeus
Hi all,

This is my first post on this forum although I've read a lot of the threads.

I can agree that this game is hard, but then I admit a lot of my difficulties have been self-inflicted. Firstly I think you must try and erase all those Civ2 habits and start fresh as a total newbie on this one as I've made a number of 'well it worked in Civ2' strategic errors.

I've played about 4 full games to completion on Warlord level, standard or large maps. I lost three of them (in two of them I was wiped out completely, the other I came about 5th) and the other I won in a most unexpected way, I had no idea before it happened that I could win the game at all. Every game plays totally differently so I think 'adaptability' is the key to success.

In my only victory I was playing as the Japanese on a large map with about 5 continents. I was in a comfortable postion on 2 main land masses and right the way through to the late industrial era there was almost no war at all. There was fierce competion for Wonders as usual but everyone seemed to be trading and getting along just fine.

By this stage I was somewhat behind in the technology race as I'd invested heavily in expansion for the previous 500 years or so. I'd managed to get the Lighthouse and my Galleys found a lovely unpopulated and unexplored continent out alone in the sea and bristling with resources - and no one elses Galleys could reach it. So with the theme from '1492' resounding, I sent waves of settlers and soldiers to claim it before the others could develop Caravels. A terrific stroke of luck.

But everything got nasty in the late 1800's. As soon as everyone needed Oil it became desperate. The mightily powerful (numero uno) Persian empire, desperate for resources and trapped on the largest continent with 4 other races, declared war on India, another power house. That set off a chain reaction of Mutual Defence Pacts that turned that one attack into a World War of epic proportions. The seas roared with cannon fire and countless Cavalry units charged to their deaths in human wave assaults. I was somewhat taken aback by this as I'd not had any war since the ancient era and even that was brief.

Worse still I had a democracy and relatively small but modern army. This meant that it would be hard for me to quickly force a victory and also hard for me to quell my own people if the switch to Communism became necessary. Anyway I began building units but too late, persian tanks and infantry landed on my 'new' continent and sacked two cities. I was surprised and appalled that the Persians didn't occupy them, just burnt them to the ground. My remaining forces on that land managed to defeat the invaders but the loss of 2 big cities as well as quite a few defending units was a serious death-blow to my war effort. Anarchy broke out in my empire (in about 20 cities!) and I had no choice but to switch to communism and kiss goodbye to the tech race. But my small army (as I feared) could not stamp out all the protesters and corruption became intollerable.

I almost despaired of winning at this point and then suddenly the French built the United Nations and immediately the election was held and (much to Frances annoyance) I won the vote! I couldn't believe it. Just as well though as I think I would have suffered a humiliating defeat if that war continued any longer.

In short, be dynamic in your strategy, never give up hope and if all else fails try a different race, the game plays very different depending whether you are Expansionist/Religeous etc.

well i guess for 100 stupid posts there is an entertaining one like yours

[Nikolai]

This is strange, Muso...

My experience is that the game is easier in some ways, for example, I have never been able to win a war without huge problems in Civ I and II, but this is much easier now!

By now, I play on one difficulity level lower than before(the next easiest) , I have to learn more before succeeding, but all in all, the game is more entertaining, better, more challenging(but without being impossible ) and with even an even stronger "one-more-turn" feeling!

[Muso]

Thanks for the replies and advice guys.. I'll try another game with your suggestions in mind.

I love playing Civ III.. maybe I shouldn't be so "winning oriented" but it is nice to win now and again!

[atog]

The scoring for civ 3 is very different from civ1&2.
1) The biggesting thing is territories.
So expand as much as you can. And get your culture as high as possible. Play a religious civ. You will ALWAYS need temple and cathedral, so why not build them cheaper. In my opinion, R civ is the best, especially you plan on using a gov that doesn't support police-ing. btw, peace is the reason why you lose, if you didn't get enuff map area within your border when all the borders are defined.
2) ALWAYS trade with other civ. In civ3, it doesn't really matter that you get ahead in tech, but it hurts a lot to get behind. Dont even worry about the cost of the tech, just trade them, 1 for 1. If you find yourself keeping some tech that you are the only one who has it, unless you are leading like 5 or more tech, you are not doing well with the trading.
hope that helps.

[Allemand]

Playing on a huge map, I aim for 8-10 cities by the year zero, then I quickly expand that out to about 25 cities before attacking anyone. The early years are peaceful, but I overrun the nearest (or easiest) civ when I get to chivalry, take the next civ with cavalry, then the next one with tanks, although this schedule could be speeded up at the lower levels. After railroads war is much harder, so make your move early.

I like the Regent level because there are no production advantages either way, but Warlord can also be challenging when you are learning the game. Not being a masochist I have avoided the upper levels so far. In Civ II the AI was too weak in anything but Deity, but in Civ III that's not the case, making the lower and mid-levels very appealing for challenging but fun games.

Early expansion is a must. On the huge map the civs become very large, taking up every habitable spot and then going for those that are not good (like the arctic ones). To win a domination or cultural victory, you will generally need more than 25 cities. I turn off the diplomatic and space conditions.

The game seems to reward the warmonger, making it tougher for a peaceful builder. If you want to play the builder role, then peace is very important. The AI seems to think that he should get more than the human player in any kind of "fair" deal, but if you have the resources that's not so bad up to a point.

Bottom line, if war is your favored method then do it early. If you prefer peace then never go to war.

I hope they fix that fighter bug soon, I'd really like to test the F-15.

[Pyrodrew]

3. Research Polytheism,Monotheism,Education etc which the ai civs dont give priority to. Then exchange techs with one civ and sell it to the others.

Unfortunatley, this is another weakness Civ3 has that Civ2 did not... I hope the patch corrects this. Civ2 military leaders researched military & peaceful did not. Civ3, I agree, it seems ALL the AI Civs have the SAME research priority for all the techs... they seem to research the same ones... perhaps even in the same order. Medicine & Sanitation are also 2 techs ALL the AI Civs NEVER go after until much later. This makes the AI in the game weaker than it should be... and worse less variety... you always know what the AI has regardless whether he/she is warlike or peaceful.

Then with 2-1, I was able to bribe another nation (with a tremednous amount of money, 2 luxuries and a tech) to war with him. After that, #3 ally was easier to bribe, and the other 2 practially begged to get into the feeding frenzy.

This always seems too... easy to do as well. 1 Tech (Sanitation) & 500 gold +20gold/turn each wasn't a "tremendous" amount of money to me since I was able to sell Medicine to 13 AI Civs for a total of over 3000 gold at +300gold/turn right before. A very small price to get the 2nd & 4th largest Superpowers to declare war on the 3rd largest Superpower. I suppose this is more due to the AI Civs just paying TOO MUCH gold for a Tech, otherwise it wouldn't have been "cheap to me". But I was expecting peace-loving Gandhi (Aggressiveness1), who I asked 1st, to ask for a higher price for sending his people into war than the Babylonians (Aggressiveness4) were asking for... there was no difference.

In civ3, it doesn't really matter that you get ahead in tech, but it hurts a lot to get behind.

Depends on the techs. Unfortunately, since the AI Civs still value & research dead-end techs for which the wonders have already been completed... it's not too hard to get ahead.

Although Civ3 is a great game, these things REALLY should be addressed... hopefully in the patch.