The lack of "strategic depth" in Civ3

[Zoid]

The turns begin to drone on with such boring meaninglessness, that even Ironikinit admits to abandoning advanced games and starting over.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
You mean like find natural resources-build cities-build improvements-expand your culture rating OR find natural resources-build cities-build military units-kick some AI ass? Or is there some hidden aspect of Civ3 strategy that I´m missing?

For me, it's only one choice: pop rushing the horsemen then whupping the AI *sses for techs, wonders, cities, resources; all the while razing cities which, by their potential reversion, might inflict dents to the hoofs of my trampling horde on its warpath. What good are those scum cities to me anyway ? Everything, other than my palace and its close coterie, is inherently filthy and corrupted to the core in this wonderfully maniacal world.
I only played one game to 1700 AD and that's because I forced myself to play on just to see what the spaceship looked like. Therefore, I can't imagine playing a game to the 21st century to get a cultural win. It just won't happen.
As many people have said, the most interesting part of the game is at the beginning where you try to make the best choices (and tough decisions) with the limited resources to gain a strategical/positional advantage, not when you're producing tons of shields and have no ideas what to do with them as in the late game where tech advance is pretentiously stretched to four turns leaving you with scores of mind-numbling, torturous turns where the biggest challenge to your kingdom (and the most serious thhreat to your sanity) is the wrist-wrecking polution !! With Civ 3, the heinous corruption problem (and the lack of any significant potential rewards) precludes the choice of building cities too far from your palaces; and the free-for-all tech tradings among the AIs precludes any chance of doing a peaceful research on your own if you want to catch up. So, most everybody sings this song:
Oh when the horses
Come trampling in
Oh when the horses come trampling in
Scums, now you see razing in full horror
When the horses come trampling in ...
As Reynolds said, if there are 3 choices "fight, bribe, or flee" and the one and only obvious choice is fight then the other choices might as well not exist. Having a choice of building a city in a far-way location in the middle of a desert in the hope that there will be strategic resource there in the far future fall into this class of "choice-but-not-really-a-choice" because by the time I have a spare settler, spare trireme, spare military units, and spare gold to build and support such city-in-the-sky, the outcome of game has pretty much been decided already if the location has not been taken by the AI settler's diahhrea.

[Zoid]

Heh, nice one

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Libertarian


I think you misunderstand Brian's point. He isn't talking about that sort of "catching up". You're merely confirming the existence of the formula.

You wrote: "The game is so formulaic that once you have fallen behind by a substantial margin, you have no hope of catching up."...And I wrote that I hadn't found the game to be that way. What's the problem?


Dip victory, space victory.

[...incredulous stare...]

You've equated these with pushing home a strategically earned passed pawn in an otherwise lost chess ending?

YES! Dip or Space can give you a victory when you are behind militarily, culturally, or territorily. When you don't have "power" but you do have "position."

"A better analogy would be a random pawn changing magically into a queen and issuing checkmate of its own volition when both players least expect it."

You're saying that Dip and Space victories are too easy? I agree - (I edited things to make them a more difficult. However, they are examples of position over power.

I suppose. Thankfully, Olympic and professional level sports have not adopted your position.

"Coach, I'm tired and bored."

"No problem. Just rest a spell and start over."

Yes, do suppose. Civ3 sn't the Olympics, and we aren't talking about multiplayer.

I think that dealing with a hundred individual workers in an interface that can move them one at a time speaks volumes about the strategic depth: namely, that it's missing.

_I_ think you're confusing poor interface with lack of strategic depth.

[...shrug...]

I'm playing the game where building a Forbidden Palace takes 200 turns. What game are you playing?

One where it doesn't have to take that long. There've been cities where it would take me 200 turns, but I had to develop them more before starting the FP. It isn't a "quick fix."

The UN victory? I don't think the strategic equivalent of a magic spell is at all analogous to the careful nurturing of a tiny and ostensibly innocuous positional advantage in chess.

Sure it is, you have to play nice with the other Civs the whole game. I'm not saying here that Civ3 has as much depth as chess, no, but that both games do offer the possibility for a "come from behind" win.

Civ3 lacks strategic depth once the early game is finished. That's what I've been explaining in some detail.

Ah. See, I've been treating what you've said as arguments. I'm confident that if you try presenting an argument what you write will be more persuasive.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Yeah, I always thought that also. Damn that chess lobby!



You mean like find natural resources-build cities-build improvements-expand your culture rating OR find natural resources-build cities-build military units-kick some AI ass? Or is there some hidden aspect of Civ3 strategy that I´m missing?

I hope you aren't trying to be obtuse.

What you've done is describe in an extremely general manner what you need to do to advance your position in Civ3. What you've completely failed to address is the myriad of decisions about exactly _which_ resource deposit to go after, what to do when your resource depisit vanishes, whether to build a military unit this turn or start an improvement... to attack the Germans or the Persians.... all the little decisions that make up most turns of every game.

"Strategic depth" doesn't NOT require "Lots and lots of completely different ways to win the game." Chess is, again, a good example. You spend the entire game in chess doing only two things: Improving your postion and, when you have the opportinuty, picking off enemy peices. Thats it. Two things. You want to say that chess doesn't have strategic depth?

If you want to say, for example, that "Civ2 had more strategic depth because you could win it with 1 city and never expand." Fine. I'd just like to add that while Civ3 seems to have eliminated the "I'm going to demonstrate how bad the AI is and only build 1 city" strategy, I think that it makes up for it in other areas.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Calvin Vu

I only played one game to 1700 AD and that's because I forced myself to play on just to see what the spaceship looked like.

"The game is too easy for me." doesn't = "The game has poor strategic depth."

As many people have said, the most interesting part of the game is at the beginning where you try to make the best choices (and tough decisions)

I want to see someone say "I was behind in the late game, but it was just too tedius to continue."

[Ironikinit]

What I don't get is that most of the people ripping on Civ 3 were Civ 2 fans, and they're pretty much the same. (I often failed to finish games of Civ 2, Kam, I hope that makes you amused. Ho ho ho.)

I could understand hostility to Civ 3 if Civ 2 was also disliked. I can understand bemoaning the lack of MP and scenarios, things that Civ 2 eventually had. I don't understand claiming that Civ 2 was a good game and Civ 3 isn't because they are the same.

No stacked movement in Civ 2
Poor AI in Civ 2
Less options in Civ 2
More exploits in Civ 2

I don't expect straight answers, because I'm pretty sure there aren't any. People just think they're being cute.

[Libertarian]

I realize that you're Mark's pet, but you really ought to muster enough self-esteem to reject dismissing people's complaints with such derisive and illogical oversimplification. If you think that contemptuous rhetoric somehow suffices as reasonable argument, you are mistaken.

[Libertarian]

You wrote: "The game is so formulaic that once you have fallen behind by a substantial margin, you have no hope of catching up."...And I wrote that I hadn't found the game to be that way. What's the problem?

The problem is your interpretation of "catching up" as I explained in some detail. To continue the chess analogy here, Brian was not talking about a Queen's Gambit; he was talking about a Smith-Morra Gambit.

YES! Dip or Space can give you a victory when you are behind militarily, culturally, or territorily. When you don't have "power" but you do have "position."

Why, that's ridiculous. Diplomatic victory is tantamount to declariing victory by virtue of winning a coin flip, and Space victory has been shifted to a bailout. Both are meaningless and hollow. Serious players turn them off.

You're saying that Dip and Space victories are too easy? I agree - (I edited things to make them a more difficult. However, they are examples of position over power.

They are examples of luck over skill.

_I_ think you're confusing poor interface with lack of strategic depth.

Strategic depth (as both Sid and Brian have maintained) is directly proportional to how interesting decisions are. Deciding which of your hundred workers to move next is not interesting.

Sure it is, you have to play nice with the other Civs the whole game. I'm not saying here that Civ3 has as much depth as chess, no, but that both games do offer the possibility for a "come from behind" win.

Do you dismiss the reports of rug-pulling victories despite impeccable diplomacy throughout the game?

Ah. See, I've been treating what you've said as arguments. I'm confident that if you try presenting an argument what you write will be more persuasive.

You've been treating what I've said as worthless and trivial. It shows in your responses.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Why, that's ridiculous. Diplomatic victory is tantamount to declariing victory by virtue of winning a coin flip, and Space victory has been shifted to a bailout. Both are meaningless and hollow. Serious players turn them off.

They are examples of luck over skill.

I know I shouldn't touch this debate with a twelve foot electrified cattle prod, but...

Define "serious player." It appears, whatever you definition is, that I don't qualify, as I leave both options on, and most often win via SS. The vast majority of those SS wins could have been domination wins, but I usually don't have the patience to rack up the required 66% land area.

My main issue with your post is the "luck over skill" comment. In order to be in position to build the SS (or the UN), your gameplay has to have been at least decent. Building a strong, advanced civ isn't "luck."

It sounds like you are saying that the only "serious players" are the horsemen/swordsmen poprushers.

-Arrian

p.s. Isn't "serious player" somewhat of an oxymoron? Heh.

[tmai]

Strategic? Well, I think the outcome of the game is for 90% defined at map creation time. It's for 90% about who will get the flood plains, cows, game and weat, because growth is the only factor that is not influenced by the randomizer. The remaining 10% is based on strategy and click throughs.

Pondering this, I have been experimenting with the new found 'multi' cheat, to check on starting positions. What I found was what I already had come to suspect: at the supposedly neutral Regent level, with 50 randomly generated maps, 48 starting locations of the human player (Persia in this case) were notably less favorable than the starting position of the closest AI neighbor (in this case most often Zulu or Babylon).

I don't think this was a freak coincidence, but I'd like to ask other people to check on this behaviour. What I did 50 times in a row was:

- Start random game on Regent, Large map, Archipelago1;
- Save as '0 multi.sav'; (the zero is for convenience so that the game will get highest on the list of saved games)
- Load game '0 multi.sav';
- Compare starting locations.

I used 5 opponent AI civs for this test, because that's how I had it configured in my bic file. This could be a disturbing factor, dunno yet. Will do more testing.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Tarquelne

I hope you aren't trying to be obtuse.

What you've done is describe in an extremely general manner what you need to do to advance your position in Civ3. What you've completely failed to address is the myriad of decisions about exactly _which_ resource deposit to go after, what to do when your resource depisit vanishes, whether to build a military unit this turn or start an improvement... to attack the Germans or the Persians.... all the little decisions that make up most turns of every game.

"Strategic depth" doesn't NOT require "Lots and lots of completely different ways to win the game." Chess is, again, a good example. You spend the entire game in chess doing only two things: Improving your postion and, when you have the opportinuty, picking off enemy peices. Thats it. Two things. You want to say that chess doesn't have strategic depth?

Tarq, what´s with the obsession with chess? I didn´t talk about chess, Lib talked about chess. Drop the chess already

If you strip away all the eye-candy/irritating micromanagment that is your "myriad of decisions" you´re left with what I described earlier "in an extremely general manner".

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
What I don't get is that most of the people ripping on Civ 3 were Civ 2 fans, and they're pretty much the same. (I often failed to finish games of Civ 2, Kam, I hope that makes you amused. Ho ho ho.)

I could understand hostility to Civ 3 if Civ 2 was also disliked. I can understand bemoaning the lack of MP and scenarios, things that Civ 2 eventually had. I don't understand claiming that Civ 2 was a good game and Civ 3 isn't because they are the same.

No stacked movement in Civ 2
Poor AI in Civ 2
Less options in Civ 2
More exploits in Civ 2

I don't expect straight answers, because I'm pretty sure there aren't any. People just think they're being cute.

Don´t be daft, what could be accepted in a game from 1996 CAN NOT be accepted in a sequel 5 YEARS LATER!! What we want is a BETTER game than Civ2, after all what´s the point of making a sequel if it´s actually equal or even inferior to prior games. Jeez

[Libertarian]

Define "serious player."

An empire building strategist. In chess, for example, compare Fine and Fischer.

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by tmai
What I found was what I already had come to suspect: at the supposedly neutral Regent level, with 50 randomly generated maps, 48 starting locations of the human player (Persia in this case) were notably less favorable than the starting position of the closest AI neighbor (in this case most often Zulu or Babylon).

While you're testing, make a random map with the editor, make one of the starting positions ridiculously good, and load the scenario. Restart 1000 times. You'll find, I suspect, that the doctored start position comes up as often as any.

Don't feel like doing it? Well, you were the one who wanted to know. Or you can try it until you get the doctored spot and accept that it's random.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
"The game is too easy for me." doesn't = "The game has poor strategic depth."

I generally don't want to mock at people's choice of words but since you sound like Merriam Webster in what "strategic depth" is supposed to mean, besides being so precise in the liberal use of the '=' sign, I simply have to quote your own definition of strategic depth:
"I have to take far more care when I make a decision, and that "more care" ="more strategic depth." "

So "more care"="more strategic depth"; but a "simplistic one-way formula to a sure win" doesn't = "The game has poor strategic depth". Aren't they corrolary ? Is "strategic depth" counted by the number of turns not by the number of alternate complexities ?

And what do you really mean by "taking more care" ? I just bring whatever horse units I have and stack them all up next to an enemy city before taking it with no fear of being counter-attacked ever . If there is some "care" that I should take then maybe you can advise me ? BTW, if I did this in Civ 2, I would be dead 20 times over.

Since we broach the topic of strategy in chess as well, this reminds me of my much younger days, way before the PC were around, before computer users sat in front of a monitors, and before the availability of opening chess databases on computers. In those days I had a thick tome of chess openings which analyzed some 10,000+ board positions after the first dozen or so moves. I spent months and months reading and analyzing that book just to have somewhat of a grasp of chess strategies. Doing the right things then the correct opening moves will give one side a slight edge over his opponents.

But, regardless of what strategy I may have in mind, if my opponent screws up enough to give me his queen for free then I'll take the queen and say damn to the strategy. What does this have to do with Civ 3 ? Well, it is related because the monotonous and fixatedly mindless ICS strategy from all of the AI civs is practically "giving me the queen" and I just have one viable "strategy" left (because of all the innovative "cannot" technologies built into the design of the game for other choices as well). Can one strategy, even for hundreds of turns, be called deep ?

The best defence against an ICS opponent is to build a fast-moving army and take all those sprawling cities like a whirwind. If all AI civs use the same ICS approach then the solution is just way too easy. Where is the "rock, paper, scissors" balance ? Which one of the AI civs (or which behavioural traits) provides the anathema against the invading horde strategy ?

I want to see someone say "I was behind in the late game, but it was just too tedius to continue."

Why ? So you can call him a quitter ? I quit whenever the outcome is fairly obvious "logistically" and "logically" because that's the point where it is no longer interesting and no more consequential decisions are needed. I don't really care if I get a lucky break and win from behind or vice versa for the AI civs. If I want some fun with my luck then I go to Las Vegas, not spend dozens of boring hours in front of a computer to see if I can beat some imaginary opponents with the rolls of the dice.

[Ironikinit]

Check the patch, Calvin. Your exploit just went away.

Despot rush eliminated.

Fast units now roll a die to determine if they retreat.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Check the patch, Calvin. Your exploit just went away.

That's good to hear, although I would prefer to hear that the design bug has been fixed after being proven bad by consumers.
Anyway, the computer I have connected to the internet is different from the one I play games on so it's not easy for me to get the patch.

Despot rush eliminated.

Great !! Is despot government eliminated as well ? What are the remaining good points of a despot government after the rush gets eliminated or will it be relegated to a good-for-nothing government that a player has to suffer until Monarchy/Republic as in the old Civ II days ?
BTW, in Civ II , the duration of a "despot" government is not too long since people can aim for Monarchy which is not too far down the tech chain so the game could be balanced out by some good human player's actions, even though the AI civ had a production advantage. What will happen to the balance of a Civ 3 game after despot is demoted to a good-for-nothing government and Monarchy is way too far in the tech chain ? If everyone is crippled by a good-for-nothing government for a very long stretch of time then isn't it obvious that the ones with the production advantages will win since there's nothing the production-handicapped person could do anyway ?

In other words, I'm not interested in knowing that another "cannot" technology has been introduced to cover yet another loophole. I'm much more interested in knowing how the game has been balanced out in both the give and the take departments, and not just the takes. I've heard enough of "we take this away and we take that away, anyway".

[QUOTE
Fast units now roll a die to determine if they retreat. [/QUOTE]
That's going to make the Aztec's UU not much better than a scout with an attack value. Not only they have the handicap of a very early GA but their UU would have a hard time against a damsel in high heels as well. Game balancing is something you design at the start, not as a fix for design loopholes.

[Ironikinit]

Me, I was just happy to have a tempting exploit taken away. You seem offended by the idea. I get through the despot period OK without rushing, maybe you should try it some time.

It was an exploit. It's gone. That's what happens to exploits in patches if the design team is doing a good job. Well, that's what happens to them in Civ 3, anyway.

BTW, monarchy was what, four techs from the start in Civ 2? That's about the same deal as in Civ 3. Once you have some cities going, the research rate moves along. Trading techs helps, too.

People really have to stop pretending Civ 2 was better than it was. Yes, it was very good. No, it's not better than Civ 3. I have both.

As for your difficulty getting the patch you might try a floppy disc to transport the file to your other computer. You managed to get the other patch there somehow I take it?

Check the patch read me. It explains things better than I can. I think that most can agree that fast units were overpowered. Once we see how the patch goes, we'll see how balance is.

I understand your grieving for the jaguar warrior. It was a big part of the despot rush exploit. My sympathies for your loss.

[Arrian]

The 1.17 readme is misleading. It says poprush was eliminated. But later in the thread, you will note a response by a firaxian who makes it clear that you can still "whip" things under despotism, but the unhappiness penalty now works as was originally intended - in other words whipping up units as fast as you can is no longer viable.

Jag warriors are weakened because of the tweak to retreat, not anything to do with poprushing. Rushing a Jag would be a waste, since they're 10 shields. They will probably still be pretty useful.

-Arrian

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
BTW, monarchy was what, four techs from the start in Civ 2? That's about the same deal as in Civ 3. Once you have some cities going, the research rate moves along. Trading techs helps, too.

I guess I should have said the number of turns instead of the number of techs since the number of turns is the only thing that counts. Even with one city, I could get a new tech in about 10 turns in Civ 2 on the average. Doesn't it take 40 turns, after the patch, in Civ 3 to get a new tech by researching when all you have is just a few nascent cities with hardly any gold to speak of ? [After all we're talking about a rush to Monarchy right at the beginning of the game, not "once you have some cities going"]. Trading techs with the AIs never gives me Polytheism so even if I can get The Wheel, Warrior Code and Horseback Riding by trading early enough in the game (of course, I will have to pay through my nose for them and won't have enough gold left for accelerated research) that will still leave Polytheism and Monarchy or about 80 turns, right ?
I would be dead in Civ II too, no matter how dumb the AI is, if I get stuck in despotism for a minimum of 80 turns with no wriggle room to do anything else.

But, I trust you if you say that you could survive despotism without having the odds stacked way too much against you to make the game meaningless to continue. Of course, I assume you mean Deity and not the Chieftain level . I'll try to down load the patch sometimes. Cheers.

[belchingjester]

I think someone expressed earlier in the thread that it's not that Civ3 is bad, it's that it's not as much better as they hoped.

Firaxis had a fine line to walk - mess with the game too much and you'll upset people - I didn't even bother with MOO2 b/c they changed most of what I liked about the first Master of Orion.

On the other hand, they're getting lambasted for not innovating enough and not changing enough.

Calvin, I agree - if the poprushing horsemen strategy always leads to victory (and you can still poprush under despotism with 1.17f, it will just make your cities unhappier), you should try playing a different way . Try playing a builder strategy. I agree, it's tough...

It seems like the patch will address many of Libertarian's concerns (not his concerns alone, BTW). Why don't we table this until we've got the patch and have played with it some?
-belchingjester

[Ironikinit]

"Doesn't it take 40 turns, after the patch, in Civ 3 to get a new tech by researching when all you have is just a few nascent cities with hardly any gold to speak of ? [After all we're talking about a rush to Monarchy right at the beginning of the game, not "once you have some cities going"].

No, at least not on monarch or emperor. I haven't played deity. It takes 40 turns to get to a tech if you research a higher level one or you keep your research levels low. I'm sure you know of the habit players have of doing exactly that. However, if I have a good start I'm sure I've seen techs available in, say, 20 turns for my second one, provided it's first level. I have to turn up the research rate, of course. Trade with the AI is easier if I have something to trade.

Rushing to anything at the beginning of the game is supposed to be difficult. While a rush to monarch is probably viable, if I used it, I would be getting it to trade anyway.

If you're having to pay excessive amounts for tech from the AI, you might try waiting. They depreciate quickly.

I've never counted the turns it takes to get to republic, which is my goal, but yes, I'd not be surprised if it took 80 turns or more to get there, especially if I have wars.

Despotism isn't a very good government type, obviously. It's not supposed to be good. That doesn't keep the beginning of the game from being one of the best parts, though.


Arrian,

Thanks for the correction. I really don't know much about pop rushing, despite reading up on it. Frankly, I suck ass at it, so I can't pretend I'll miss it.

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
No, at least not on monarch or emperor. I haven't played deity. It takes 40 turns to get to a tech if you research a higher level one or you keep your research levels low.
I've seen techs available in, say, 20 turns for my second one, provided it's first level.

If you manage to trade for Warrior Code, The Wheel, and Horseback Riding then you have no choice but to keep the research level low since there won't be any gold left after paying the installments for those 3 techs. I'm talking about the best case scenario here. Of course, you can use all the gold to do your own research without tradings but that would probably take at least 20*5 == 100 turns.

If you're having to pay excessive amounts for tech from the AI, you might try waiting. They depreciate quickly.

I know. The further you get behind the cheaper the lower-level techs are. Generally, I don't make any big plans to be behind in tech unless I'm just amassing my horse units to get all those techs for free.

Despotism isn't a very good government type, obviously. It's not supposed to be good. That doesn't keep the beginning of the game from being one of the best parts, though.

The best part comes from the exploration which allows you to decide on how to locate your cities with respect to the bonus resources and the locations of neighboring civs. This is the strategical part as opposed to the various tactics on how to get this and that later on. Picking which city and when to start a pop rush used to be a pretty interesting decision too, for a while, anyway . Too bad because of the corruption, the cultural reversion and the lack of more profitable caravan trading for far-away cities, the sense of exploration that comes from building a city at a far-away place.
I don't see the 1.17f patch at firaxis.com, BTW. Furthermore, the 1.16f patch is 7.31M according to the spec. and won't fit on a floppy.
Have anybody tried the 1.17f patch ? What happens to the happiness of a one-citizen pop-rush city, or maybe two citizens ? The unhappy citizens can no longer be made content by the mitary units nor the luxury resources if you pop-rush the city too many times ?

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by Calvin Vu
Too bad because of the corruption, the cultural reversion and the lack of more profitable caravan trading for far-away cities, the sense of exploration that comes from building a city at a far-away place.

Ouch, hanging sentence. !! I meant it was taken away and there's no point in building a city too far from your palace any more.

[Ironikinit]

The patch will be out on Friday. We'll have to wait and see how the new despot rush rule works.

You might try a file splitter to break the patch up onto two floppy size files. Try www.download.com. (It will redirect.)

I have to disagree about faraway cities being worthless. While distant cities often take a while to get to the point where they turn a profit/turn, with require careful management they will do so. Further, city could lose money, lots of money, yet still be worthwhile because of strategic considerations such as claiming luxuries/resources or serving as a military outpost and staging point.

Yes, research takes time in the early game. Sometimes I have no choice but to bide my time until I can afford to buy them. There are choices I can make that will help with this, and war isn't the only choice. It may really be so that war is the only way to succeed on deity level, I don't know. Usually my early wars are thrust upon me, I don't choose them. I don't use population rush, so it's a tough spot, a challenge. I muddle through, usually, but sometimes I resign, not because of tedium.

[Encomium]

Strategic "depth" - or strategic insight??

By that I mean the following.

The AI civs gang up on the human in order to prevent him from winning, this is especially so if he leads the others in overall score.

Those civs do that even when it is NOT in their advantage, overall, to do so. The Persians recently were very difficult to deal with and were loathe to make peace; they only did after a long war that they lost, but by then the Germans were overruning the rest of their country.

The Aztecs were nearly suicidally stubborn against me once.

The examples are many. It seems the objective of every civ is not to win - but to stop the HUMAN from winning no matter what happens to their civ. And that is another flaw in the game.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Encomium
The examples are many. It seems the objective of every civ is not to win - but to stop the HUMAN from winning no matter what happens to their civ. And that is another flaw in the game.

No. It looks like the others civs are as sick of you as we are.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Libertarian


The problem is your interpretation of "catching up" as I explained in some detail. To continue the chess analogy here, Brian was not talking about a Queen's Gambit; he was talking about a Smith-Morra Gambit.

You can have it both ways. A Culrual or Historgraphic win is a win you've earned through hard work the whole game (or not so hard if the game is too easy.) A Dip or Space win is one you get by working not-so-hard but getting somewhere first, (or "loosing" most of the game but being very frienldy.)
I reject your contention that Dip and Space victories are simply "examples of luck over skill" just as abruptly as your own argument (so abrupt I've just stated it in full "examples of luck over skill.")

It isn't just "luck" that the AI Civs like you enough to vote for you in the UN. It isn't "luck" that allows you to get to all the space ship parts before any AI.
They aren't as satisfying as a good "positional" vicotry in chess, sure. But I don't think anyone where is arguing that Civ3 has much "depth" as chess. All I'm arguing is that it doesn't have less than Civ2.

On "serious players" turning off Dip and Space.
First - I do too, but I'm not comfortable with making a statement about the playing habits of those who don't. Are you a telepath?
Second - OF COURSE Civ3 has no "positional" win if you always turn off Dip and Space.

Strategic depth (as both Sid and Brian have maintained) is directly proportional to how interesting decisions are. Deciding which of your hundred workers to move next is not interesting.

That means moving all those workers around sucks - interface, not a "strategic depth" issue! One doesn't even make decisions with all those workers, you make a few interesting deciesions, and then start the tedious moving.

Do you dismiss the reports of rug-pulling victories despite impeccable diplomacy throughout the game?

Tell me about them.

You've been treating what I've said as worthless and trivial. It shows in your responses.

I just think its incorect, and have been trying to demonstrate that. This is called "Some one argueing with you." (As opposed to: "Someone making a series of statements that happen to have conclusions differing from your own.")

The only _really_ worthless and trivial statement you've made is the one quoted immedietly above.

[Libertarian]

This is called "Some one argueing [sic] with you."

And that is called "condescension".