Not Fair and Just Not Fun Anymore

[C Chulainn]

I've been playing Civ in its various incarnations for years... since I put Civ 1 on my DOS only 386sx25, and I have to finally say that I'm about to give up on Civ3.
Some people might already have read my moan about how on medium-high difficulty levels you're straitjacketed in your early strategy, and that's one annoyance. Another minor annoyance is that if you choose a particular nation, you are permanently stuck as either male or female, which is surely a step back from Civ 2 which gave you the option - if I choose to be the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses or Narmer, I don't want to be continually addressed as "Noble Lady" thank you... anyway, that's minor.
My real complaint is firstly the combat system, which seems sadly to have regressed almost to Civ 1 level where men in furs with obsidian axes can defeat your tank corps, but more importantly with the resource system... in search of a nice relaxing game of crushing my enemies, I recently played at Chieftain level... the trouble was the only iron resource was halfway round the world, and then there was only one coal resource on my entire continent and it was next to a Babylonian city - the Babylonians were my most important ally, so war was not an option. Everyone else in the game was too primitive to realise the value of coal, and so I couldn't trade for it. Phut! That was it. I was stuck unable to build any rail at all ever and so my technology stagnated... it was easy for the Greeks to then seize one city with a mass of knights and cut me off from iron as well.
The upshot of it is that I wasted time on a lost cause. I was doomed from the start by the (permanently fixed in C3) random resource distribution. At least in earlier versions it didn't take long into the game to find whether you were on a tiny island and therefore doomed.
It seems to me Civ3 is a bit of a lemon. You must play to the formula at higher levels, and no matter what level you play at you're ultimately waiting to see if the virtual dice are kind to you.

[hwinkels]

Blah, blah, blah. You've obviously mistaken us for someone who actually gives a rat's patootie. Look, you've got to learn when to cut your losses. Some games become obvious that it's going to be tough to win. That's when discretion becomes the better part of valor and it's time to start a new game. The way resources and starting locations are randomized in Civ3, there's no guarantee that every game will be winnable. Just ain't gonna happen.

[felder]

It seems to me that what you want is the ability to win everytime. I will agree that the combat system as issues, but you can work with with it. You can't just blindly send in tanks and other advanced units like you could in civ2 and expect to win. Civ3 does force you to use a bit of strategy. Did you combine defensive units with your tanks, and use bombardment to weaken the enemy before attacking? Are you mindful of the terrain and the effect it has on defense? Were you attacking large cities where defenders get a huge defensive bonus?

There's lots of things you can do in Civ3 to give you better odds in combat...and yes even then you will have the occasional spearman took out my tank scenario. While annoying, I don't see it has a deal breaker. Just build another tank and get on with it.

As far as the resource issue goes...it's totally luck of the draw. I'm sure you don't complain when an enemy civ is stuck in the stone ages because they don't have resources. If you don't have something, take it. If you can't take it, trade for it. If you can't trade for it, adjust your strategy. Kiss up to the AI until you're out of the iron and coal age. Granted, having no rails is a pain but it isn't an unsurmountable problem. This is particularly true because you indicated that the other Civs were too backward to know what coal is. If they don't have rails yet...certainly you're not at a major disadvantage.

Finally, getting mad because the AI does something intelligent and takes away your iron is ridiculous. Isn't the AI supposed to play to win? Don't you attempt to cripple the AI when attacking, by taking away its resources?

I will agree that Civ3 has issues...but it really sounds like you're complaining because you got your butt kicked instead of really addressing serious problems the game has.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
My real complaint is firstly the combat system, which seems sadly to have regressed almost to Civ 1 level where men in furs with obsidian axes can defeat your tank corps,

Was your tank at full health or at reduced health? Was it a weak regular? Had it any terrain-bonus advantages or disadvantages?
Was the "men in furs" veterans or even elite? Was there several of them stacked, defending the same spot? Had they any city-, fortress- or terrain-related combat bonuses?

but more importantly with the resource system... in search of a nice relaxing game of crushing my enemies, I recently played at Chieftain level... the trouble was the only iron resource was halfway round the world, and then there was only one coal resource on my entire continent and it was next to a Babylonian city.

Did you play on a small map?
Do you mean "Only one iron-tile available" or "Only one iron available in the trade-advisor".

The first one is always used up by that Civ, if he have the tech know-how for it. The second or even the third one can be traded internally amongst the AI-civs.

Anyway; if you want to play an easier game, regarding resource-availability: open the CivMod editor -> Natural resources tab. There you can easily change the Appearance ratio and the Dissapearence probability for each and every strategic resource, as easy as 1-2-3.

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by C Chulainn
you are permanently stuck as either male or female, which is surely a step back from Civ 2 which gave you the option - if I choose to be the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses or Narmer, I don't want to be continually addressed as "Noble Lady" thank you... anyway, that's minor.

VERY minor, yes, and one of the few things that actually CAN be edited in the civ3mod.bic :>

in search of a nice relaxing game of crushing my enemies, I recently played at Chieftain level... the trouble was the only iron resource was halfway round the world, and then there was only one coal resource on my entire continent and it was next to a Babylonian city - the Babylonians were my most important ally, so war was not an option. Everyone else in the game was too primitive to realise the value of coal, and so I couldn't trade for it.

If the Babylonians were such an important ally, give them the techs they needed to see that those dull gray rocks r0x0r, then ask for the coal.

That was it. I was stuck unable to build any rail at all ever and so my technology stagnated... it was easy for the Greeks to then seize one city with a mass of knights and cut me off from iron as well.

Good for the AI! A case in which it was actually somewhat intelligent. Amazing. This WAS Chieftan level, you said. Take it back! Yep, that's not easy without iron. So you got an unexpected surprise in the form of a challenge. If you don't want a challenge, by all means, don't play new games; you'll have to learn new strategies. Raillessness isn't a game breaker, anyway.

The upshot of it is that I wasted time on a lost cause. I was doomed from the start by the (permanently fixed in C3) random resource distribution. At least in earlier versions it didn't take long into the game to find whether you were on a tiny island and therefore doomed.

You could've held out until some coal squares exhausted and repopped. You DID realize there's a small chance each turn of a resource moving, didn't you? You could also have gone overseas to fight hard for a coal spot elsewhere. I mean, I can't think of ANY time in history when a motherland, strapped for resources, had to colonize and/or conquer overseas in the hopes of shipping back needed materials. I like the realism. Satya's world map, for example, very accurately represents both the European congestion and need to colonize "new worlds" as their own resources exhaust. If you don't find such things fun, you can always edit yourself a civ with all 6 advantages, several high end techs to start the game with (including steam power...gotta have those 4000 BC rails!), edit out the resource requirements, and have yourself a nice unrealistic cakewalk.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by hwinkels
Blah, blah, blah. You've obviously mistaken us for someone who actually gives a rat's patootie. Look, you've got to learn when to cut your losses. Some games become obvious that it's going to be tough to win. That's when discretion becomes the better part of valor and it's time to start a new game. The way resources and starting locations are randomized in Civ3, there's no guarantee that every game will be winnable. Just ain't gonna happen.

Yes, but it would be nice to know that the game had made it impossible to win without having spent a few hours playing first, would it not? You've obviously mistaken me for someone who is glad to take it up the a**e. This isn't a game of Solitaire.

[Capt Dizle]

When people take the time to post their frustrations with the game they should not be flamed.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by felder
It seems to me that what you want is the ability to win everytime

As far as the resource issue goes...it's totally luck of the draw. I'm sure you don't complain when an enemy civ is stuck in the stone ages because they don't have resources. If you don't have something, take it. If you can't take it, trade for it. If you can't trade for it, adjust your strategy. Kiss up to the AI until you're out of the iron and coal age. Granted, having no rails is a pain but it isn't an unsurmountable problem. This is particularly true because you indicated that the other Civs were too backward to know what coal is. If they don't have rails yet...certainly you're not at a major disadvantage.

What I would like is the ability to progress - it was the 1950s and I was still only halfway through the industrial age, at Chieftain level, and with a Democracy and a small army of idle workers. Of course I was going to win anyway in the long term by being much larger than my Greek and Roman enemies, but that isn't the point. This randomness seems to completely control the course of the game, regardless of how well you play. You can start with your capital totally surrounded by cows or wheat, or you can end up with nothing but a couple of squares of spices on an entire continent... and yes, if I'd fancied a challenging game and just been handed all the resources on a plate while other civs had nothing, that too would have been a bit disappointing - what we have here amounts to poker with the betting taken out.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by Xentropy

So you got an unexpected surprise in the form of a challenge. If you don't want a challenge, by all means, don't play new games; you'll have to learn new strategies. Raillessness isn't a game breaker, anyway.



You could've held out until some coal squares exhausted and repopped. You DID realize there's a small chance each turn of a resource moving, didn't you? You could also have gone overseas to fight hard for a coal spot elsewhere. I mean, I can't think of ANY time in history when a motherland, strapped for resources, had to colonize and/or conquer overseas in the hopes of shipping back needed materials. I like the realism. Satya's world map, for example, very accurately represents both the European congestion and need to colonize "new worlds" as their own resources exhaust. If you don't find such things fun, you can always edit yourself a civ with all 6 advantages, several high end techs to start the game with (including steam power...gotta have those 4000 BC rails!), edit out the resource requirements, and have yourself a nice unrealistic cakewalk.

*sigh* the whole reason for playing at Chieftain was that in this game, I didn't want too much of a challenge! I'd done the colonise for resource thing already for the iron and was pleased it had worked for a while at least, only to discover I had been wasting my time ... yes, I know resources occasionally get discovered in new spots, but since it was already the 1950s, I was running out of time. Civ3 makes coal especially ridiculously rare (see another thread where there was one coal square on the planet...) making it all too close to "roll a dice to see who wins".

[Moraelin]

I've had one funky game, too, a couple of days ago, where just about every single kind of resource was on the other end of the continent. Picture a world shaped VERY roughly like the letter H. I've sprawled all over the left bar of the H (and wiped out India in the process), the English take the horizontal bar of the H, and most of the resources are in the right vertical bar. I've researched all the way to build Riflemen and Cavalry, but the Saltpeter is at the other end of the British empire, and Horses are even farther. I can't even make knights. I have my Wall Street guarded by Hoplites. LOL.

Just bribed everyone silly to leave me alone, until I got Infantry and Tanks. Especially the English, which served very conveniently as a buffer between me and the rest of the world. I figure the Queen had a hat made of my money by the end of it

[The Eliminator]

One thing I've noticed that is consistent with all of the complainers here is that they all lack imagination and creativity.

Not having a strat resource is one of the best parts of the game! Trying to get it what makes it so fun.

You obviously are not cut out to play Civ3, so if you are not up to discovering and testing new strategies, then cut your losses and sell the game on eBay.

Just quit crying.

[Venger]

Ah yes, someone points out the emperor has no clothes, and here come the sycophants with invisible thread and needles to try and weave one.

He is correct that resources as currently done render the game either unplayably easy or unplayably hard. If the AI doesn't have a resource, it's screwed. If you don't, you're often screwed. Oil, Coal, Iron are three things found on EVERY continent. Just not in this game. The implementation is poor.

Oh and yes, he wants to be ABLE to win every time. So do I. Nobody likes predestination. I've had my share of bad starts, but to not have ANY chance to overcome the game mechanics means you are walking into a wall.

Venger

[Bilo]

Originally posted by C Chulainn

*sigh* the whole reason for playing at Chieftain was that in this game, I didn't want too much of a challenge! I'd done the colonise for resource thing already for the iron and was pleased it had worked for a while at least, only to discover I had been wasting my time ... yes, I know resources occasionally get discovered in new spots, but since it was already the 1950s, I was running out of time. Civ3 makes coal especially ridiculously rare (see another thread where there was one coal square on the planet...) making it all too close to "roll a dice to see who wins".

The reason coal is rare is the fact that it only apears on hills, mountains and jungles. If you take a 5 billion years old, non-humid planet; the number of the hills, mountains and jungles will be very low, and only on a small portion of these land will have coal. When you play with settings that would maximize your population, you should also know that you are hurting yourself on other ways.

[Moraelin]

The Eliminator, that's just nasty and uncalled for. One thing you probably should remember is that a LOT of the income from game sales is from us losers with no talent, no imagination, no gaming skill, blah, blah, blah. It's easy to say that all the people who've had bad experiences or lack the skill should just go away. But if they actually took a hint and did something else, instead of trying to play those games they suck at, the rest of you would be looking at a lot less games being published, and at a lot lower budgets per game. (And before you say "but Civ 3 would have sold even without the whiners", well, yes, maybe, but the publisher can't know that in advance. There've been games which looked like sure hits and only sold a few hundred copies total.)

And, yes, it's easy to edit those things in an editor, but you'll also have to remember that a lot of people just want to play, not to tinker with the editor and experiment with numbers. A lot of people just want to come home from work and start playing NOW. (That's why I love consoles, incidentally.) For you, yes, it may be the apex of fun to experiment with the lame editor and try until you can have something that at least doesn't crash the game. Good for you, and you have my sincere respect for that. But most people aren't of that mindset. E.g., that I've modded Civ 3 is a very rare exception, not a rule. (And looking back: far more of a source of frustration, than tons of fun.) Normally I'd say that I bought a finished game, not an engine to make my own game out of it. (If nothing else, if I just wanted an engine, I'd probably start with Free Civ, which (A) is free, and (B) is open source, so it's a LOT easier to mod.)

It would have been nice to just have a slider, like in CTP 2. You drag it to the left, there are less resources, you drag it to the right, there are more resources. Voila. Problem solved. It's an _user-friendly_ way to solve the problem, unlike the editor.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Bilo
The reason coal is rare is the fact that it only apears on hills, mountains and jungles. If you take a 5 billion years old, non-humid planet; the number of the hills, mountains and jungles will be very low, and only on a small portion of these land will have coal. When you play with settings that would maximize your population, you should also know that you are hurting yourself on other ways.

Which is yet another counter-intuitive thing, and not properly documented either. (And, yes, I've actually read the manual.) Common sense and this universe's physics say that Coal and Oil are fossilized organic sediments. All else being equal, a 5 billion years world should have a lot MORE coal and oil than a 3 billion year world.

Now you and I can think purely in terms of game tiles, common sense and laws of physics be damned. Probably on account of having played too much games But for someone who didn't... It's just going to be a nasty surprise. Can't really blame them if they'll be upset when that kind of surprise bites them.

[Zanzin]

Man, if you're in 1950 and still in the industrial age techs...I've gotta be honest, the problem is with you, not the game.

Wasn't one of the biggest complaints about civ2 that the AI wasn't hard enough? That winning the game was for gone conclusion?

And now, Civ3 rolls around, and now winning ISN'T a for gone conclusion, and all these people come out of their holes to have a whinge about it. Well, sorry if the game is a challenge for you. But isn't that what life is about? Challenges?

If you're already playing on chieftan, I guess the answer would be to go into the editor and really dumb things down a bit - increase resource distribution, decrease chance of resource disapearing, change the stats of units so that all the good ones are available to your civ and your civ alone, start off with 10,000 gold etc etc. Would that be easy enough for you? I'd call it boring, personally.

The game should be easy to win at Chieftain level, since it is the easiest difficulty level. I had a hard time winning at the easiest level because of the resource allocation and I think it makes the game less fun to the casual player. It's the casual player that easy level should cater to, not the game experts. I have not played a game of Civ 3 in weeks now, because I find the game very frustrating. Like someone said in this thread, I guess I will count my losses on this one. I will be more wary of any Firaxis games from now on.

[Zanzin]

Alright, admiteddly, the game should be a no brainer on chieftan. But the resources usually get allocated so there is at least one of everything per civ (in terms of strategic resources anyway).

But if you're having such un unlucky time with the resources, spend 5 minutes in the editor increasing the values of the likeliness of occourance, and you'll probably end up having a much more enjoyable game.

[drmofe]

Originally posted by The Eliminator
You obviously are not cut out to play Civ3, so if you are not up to discovering and testing new strategies, then cut your losses and sell the game on eBay.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search...vilization+III

Tum ti tum..."Civilization III (Paperweight)"...sums it up.
DRM

[yin26]

My advice to you guys who don't think you should have to fix things that should have been working properly in the first place: Return your Civ3 / sell your Civ3 on E-bay. Then, about a year from now, check back on these boards regarding the Gold Edition.

By then, a few things will have happened (assuming Civ3 was making enough money in the first place to continue its development): 1) Things like the allocation of resources, etc., will have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. 2) The editor will actually be worth something, which will allow the community here to make some great mods and fix / alter a great number of things. 3) Multiplayer will be included.

As you can see, Civ3 as it stands is a beta product, and not everybody has the patience and desire to be an unpaid beta tester. Check back when the full product is available.

[Bilo]

Originally posted by Moraelin


Which is yet another counter-intuitive thing, and not properly documented either. (And, yes, I've actually read the manual.) Common sense and this universe's physics say that Coal and Oil are fossilized organic sediments. All else being equal, a 5 billion years world should have a lot MORE coal and oil than a 3 billion year world.

Now you and I can think purely in terms of game tiles, common sense and laws of physics be damned. Probably on account of having played too much games But for someone who didn't... It's just going to be a nasty surprise. Can't really blame them if they'll be upset when that kind of surprise bites them.

Well, I can play the devil's advocate, and argue that this is actually realistic. A 5 billion year world would be much more geologically stable than a 3 billion year world. Therefore organic material is less likely to be trapped in layers of rock in an older planet.
However humid->jungle(coal), arid->desert(oil) does not make any sense at all.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by yin26
My advice to you guys who don't think you should have to fix things that should have been working properly in the first place: Return your Civ3 / sell your Civ3 on E-bay. Then, about a year from now, check back on these boards regarding the Gold Edition.

As you can see, Civ3 as it stands is a beta product, and not everybody has the patience and desire to be an unpaid beta tester. Check back when the full product is available.

I really hope resources aren't revamped, and I doubt they will be since you can edit them. As others have said, lack and excesses of resources help mold the shape of each game. These are tied to the geography, loosely. I don't want a game like civ 2 where I know I can conquer the ai every single time unless barbarians kill my first city.

Anyway, you're right, civ 3 does have some rough edges, like swordsmen and other ancient units that don't become obselete, but oh what bliss to PAY to be a beta-tester.

[The Eliminator]

Hey, I'm the first one to admit that Civ3 is kind of a rip off, I mean, I bought the LE the morning it was released, and I skipped classes, raced home, and threw in the video cd, and after watching the 13 minutes of self promotion; I was kinda like "Thats it?"

But hey, just like all of the other LE threads and whiners out there, yes it was a gyp. Do I regret buying the LE? You bet, I wish I bought the regular one, and saved myself 20 clams.

However, the game flat out rocks. It took a bit longer to get used to than Civ2 did, but after playing it, there is no comparison.

I'm not out to troll, or insult people, I'm just saying that Civ, and most importantly, Civ3, is a thinking man's game. The people who are complaining all complain about the same thing! If all of the resources were evenly distributed, the game would suck. No challenge.

More often than not, I know that the next game I'm gonna have is gonna be a challenge, unlike Civ2. This guy, and most other complainers, are mad that they have to change their strats, adapt, etc. Well, thats why it's called a STRATEGY GAME! Dig out your old Doom or AOE if you want a no-brain game.

My final point about Civ3 whiners is that they gotta settle down a bit. I mean, the people in these forums represent probably 1% of the people who buy the game. They released the patch in fairly quick fashion, the game is top notch, and believe me, even less than the 1% care about scenarios or MP.

Civ2's ability to be altered to your liking was amazing, and I have no idea why they changed it, but they did. I hope they fix it, but if they don't; it won't make the game any less fun.

[francoImpaler]

I agree with the frustration about resources and I agree with those that see it as a challenge. It depends on what you want out of the game.

I will admit that what I want is to be able to kick ass every time on the easiest level. If I want a challenge I go to the higher levels

However I see no reason to complain since you can use the editor to load the map with resources or increase their probability (of course you must have the terrain). If you don't want your modern units losing to bowmen, jack up the power levels and kick the bowmans ass.

Frankly I would have tired of the game quick without the editor. I enjoy the games where I have tweaked the units. I made a roman conquerer bic where the legionary is a 6-6. I also like for warriors to clear jungle.

I am sure some purists will think this is dumb but since there is no mp it is no big deal.

[felder]

Originally posted by Venger
Ah yes, someone points out the emperor has no clothes, and here come the sycophants with invisible thread and needles to try and weave one.

He is correct that resources as currently done render the game either unplayably easy or unplayably hard. If the AI doesn't have a resource, it's screwed. If you don't, you're often screwed. Oil, Coal, Iron are three things found on EVERY continent. Just not in this game. The implementation is poor.

Oh and yes, he wants to be ABLE to win every time. So do I. Nobody likes predestination. I've had my share of bad starts, but to not have ANY chance to overcome the game mechanics means you are walking into a wall.

Venger

Whether or not the resource system makes it unbearably hard or unbearably easy is an opinion. One, I don't happen to agree with.

I think the resources add an interesting dynamic to the game. There wouldn't be much point to the resource system if everyone had them. Also, note that in his post he indicated that there was coal and iron on his continent. It was just that someone else had the coal, and the AI took his iron. I do agree that most if not all the resources should be located on every continent, but I imagine that this would be difficult to implement. What if you play with islands and not continents? Also, often when playing you get stuck in a crappy location like a small island, while one of the AIs has a huge land mass all to itself. These things, along with the resource issue happen. Part of the game is dealing with it.

I can understand where people find lack of resources frustrating, but I rather enjoy sometimes having a game where I'm handicapped. In these situations, a diplomatic victory or a culture victory can be very satisfying. Likewise, I find it fun sometimes to have all the resources and stick it to the AI. There are enough ways to win in Civ3, where lack of resources won't cost you the win.

BTW - It's not that I think Firaxis can do no wrong. The game does have many issues I'd like to see changed. I just don't agree with the original poster on this issue. This doesn't make me a sycophant thank you very much.

[Green Giant]

Damn Firaxis for creating an AI that tries to win, damn them all to heck!

You crybabies just need something to whine about. Your just mad that a piece of programming code is mopping the floor with you. You do realize that you can change how many resources show up in the editor, don't you? You can do that to prop up your complete lack of skills.

Go play Duck Hunt so you can put the gun to the screen and win every time.

[Moraelin]

Green Giant, ever wondered why there are difficulty levels in the first place? Why not have a game with Deity as the only choice? Right, because as was already pointed out, there are a helluva lot of people who don't have the mad skillz. And their money is just as good as yours. Or who prefer a more relaxed game than the mad rushes and fine tweaking every single production or trade, that become needed on the higher levels. (See the "How to sell a Luxury in 80 steps" for the kind of compulsive behaviour needed to win on Deity.) And their money is good, too.

That's why difficulty levels are needed, and that's why most games nowadays have built-in cheats, and that's why on the consoles there's a very prosperous market for cheat add-ons.

And sometimes some game companies forget about that, and get way too lost in the idea of making the game challenging, so they lose sight of the sunday gamer market. E.g., even Chieftain isn't as easy as it was in previous games. Then comes such a random twist that throws difficulty through the roof for the already overwhelmed sunday gamer. And it's about as much fun for him as a kick in the crotch. If he wanted a challenge that takes real skill, he'd be playing on Deity instead of Chieftain in the first place.

IMHO Chieftain should have been just short of having a "push here" to win button. Take a hint from Tropico. There they offer what can only be described as a built in trainer, as the lowest difficulty settings. The lowest economic difficulty setting there means infinite money, and the lowest political difficulty setting means the people will love you no matter what. You only get a 1% as a score multiplier if you use either of those, but wth, it beats downloading a third party trainer. THAT is what lowest difficulty should mean in any game: something you can't really lose even if you're drunk and senile and have a goldfish-like attention span to boot.

Again, if only people with mad skillz bought games, and the rest buggered off, then all y'all Deity players would be looking at less games per year, lower budgets, and likely at paying 100 bucks per game instead of 30.

[Dis]

You newbies are not man enough to play Civ3. Good riddance.

[D4everman]

Although its frustrating at times I like the resource system.In my last game I had to do something I don't like doing....pick a fight/ start a war with India to get my hands on the rubber resources that were just out of my reach. I also had to give tech to other civs in order to sway them to my side in my war (because if I didn't the Indians would surely have gotten them to join in against me)

What happened is a long war that ended when I realized that I couldn't really conquer the indians and maintain a tech lead at the same time. The War Weariness was takiing a toll, but I had whittled them down to a thrid of their empire. Great fun, and all for two measley rubber resources!

And I'm not going to win, either...at least not by 2050. The war slowed down my research enough to make sure of that. Oh well...I still had fun.

[waasabi]

The difficulty levels in Civ3 work and work very well. Chieftan is such a joke to play. It is very easy to out-produce, out-tech, out-culture AND out-military the AI _all in the same game_. There is realistically no way to dumb the game down even further then chieftain without, say, giving the human a leader every 20 turns or something.

I really don't understand the complaint about the "sunday gamer". Sounds more like the self-described "sunday gamer" player type would be more satisfied by watching a movie.