Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In that at least, Vel is not wrong. And if my interpretation of the character of every game of Civ you have ever played is off (AI rapid expansion forcing you to do the same, pretty much forcing an early age conflict one way or the other), then by all means, post a save game and lemme have a peek! Cos in every single game I have ever played, that's how it came out. After a while, it was like watching reruns of some sitcom. Regardless of how charming it mightabeen the first few times watching it, the repitition got tiresome for me after a while. That, along with the reasons I've mentioned above, is why the game is no longer on my hard drive.

I'm not that great a player, I can win consistently on monarch and occassionally on Emperor, so perhaps I am not one to discuss strategies, but here goes.

1st: You don't have to expand as rapidly as the AI does, map dependent of course. I have found that if I try what the AI does, and have tiny cities all over the place, its like inviting the AI to come over for dinner. They will just pick them off one at a time. I play better when I have a nice sized empire, one that I can defend fairly well, overextension early kills me. The exception to this is that I will plant cities on luxury resources that are distant from the capital.

2nd: I have played games without ancient conflict as have others. For me it depends on the map size and type and number of opponents. Sure if its a regular map with 16 civs, there's going to be fighting nearly right away as the civs will be on top of one another. But, play huge or gigantic maps with say 8 civs or even 4, you're (probably) not going to have that early warfare (for me anyway, too much of a hassle to send a constant stream of units halfway around the world without roads). Also if you're on an island, no warfare there, drop everything and run to mapmaking and hope your galley is blessed and doesn't sink.

3rd: You say there are three opening strategies: early war; beeline to republic; get off this island.

This first one I think is an oversimplification. So while I suppose what I typically do is included, I think there are different ways to approach the early war. If I'm the Irqs, I beeline for Horseback Riding, to trigger the UU. Now I have some choices. Do I have horses, or are they nearby on unoccupied land? If so, I can start making MWs and go on a rampage. If I don't have horses (which I would have known after wheel) do I go for ironworking to get swordsmen? If I'm next to the greeks, anything else will get chewed up. Other civs, I might get lucky against using archers or whatever. If that is the case, I usually sit tight for a while, while determining who to attack to secure the horse and iron resources. (I had this problem recently with a 256x256 pangea map. I modified the size, but not the resources, so I had a civ with probably 25 cities and no horses and no iron, Whoops! (eventually I expanded to where there was horses, but it really was a pain)

Also in the equation is the Golden age. Do I trigger now, to raise the army faster, or do I wait till later in the game when I have more cities to take advantage of it?

What about the use of leaders? Blow now on a wonder, save for a wonder (bypassing other chances to get GLs) or create an army (to increase chances of getting great leaders). Some people have only seen a few of the GLs so they are quite precious. I usually don't have a problem triggering multiple Gls in a game, but since its random, it is an important choice to make.

Also, you have given three strats for the early game. What about after that time period? Sometimes I will hunker down (as the AI gets pikes) and try to get to Military Tradition ASAP before renewing old acquaintances. Other times I will ride the momentum and keep attacking, replacing my MW's with Knights as they come online. I could go for Democracy (and Bach and Mike) if I was peaceful and wanted culture. If I was still stuck on that island, I could go for navigation (though on the upper levels, if that happened, game over for me the human)

Industrial Period: Again, while there aren't as many choices as you (or I) would like, there are choices to make. I usually aim for hoover, getting industrialized in the process. There: Do I shut down my war machine piece by piece to install factories, or do I keep attacking with all my might? After hoover, I go for tanks. Other people will trade Hoover, or wait, and go for infantry first, then do the rest. Or you could get sanitation to get larger cities. Etc. Etc.

Maybe you and others can win the game within the first 30 turns. I cannot, therefore I have different strategic choices to make throughout the game. If I knew how to win the game easily, I would probably be bored with it too.

This isn't to say that I begrudge you or whatever because you don't like the game. What I don't like is how you broke the game down into 3 steps and said that's all there is to the game. I could do the same for other games, including games you like, wouldn't you respond that I was wrong? Also, while you say (and I believe) that you are not intentionally belittling anyone, by saying that the game is three mindless steps, isn't it inherent in that statement that the people who would enjoy such a game are mindless? I'll admit, I like mindless activities myself, perhaps too much, but I find it insulting when I have to think about playing a game (ala civ3) and someone says there is nothing more to the game than a few steps and clicks.

Should I have thicker skin? Of course. should I care about what the Critics of Civ3 say? No, I should be happy that I have a game I enjoy. A game that is continually being improved by its creators. I should be happy that I don't have to hit the nostalgia button to find a game I like. And I should leave it at that.

Perhaps the real difference is that I just play the game for leisure. I don't have enough time to play the game to the extent that others do, so perhaps I don't get as burned out as easily. Also, I'm not looking for a game that will change my life, I'm just looking for a game that will take me away from reality when I need it to. I never expected Civ3 to be THE GAME TO END ALL GAMES. Civ wasn't, Civ2 wasn't, SMAC wasn't, so I guess what I'm saying is that i have never seen perfection in a game, so I wasn't expecting it here and thus can put up with the flaws, which IMO are less numerous than in the other games.
[blah blah blah /end ramble]

Thanks.

[Velociryx]

Hey asleepatthewheel:

First, I apologize if my categorization of the game was in any way a belittlement. That's certainly not what it was meant to do.

It's simply that I do strategy. That's what I get into. I play games with the specific intention of breaking them. The guys at the local Electronics Boutique laugh when they see me coming back for more games, cos they know it means that I've played the role of wrecking ball on the latest game(s) I've gone in to purchase.

Lately, I've been going through them more and more rapidly, which I suppose, on the one hand, could be seen as a good thing. It could mean that I'm improving in my skills where strategy is concerned, and thus, am able to reach a point in the games I play where there's simply no challenge in it any more.

OTOH, it could mean that the level of challenge in games is dropping as games are streamlined and simplified to have more mass appeal.

Perhaps, the ultimate truth lies somewhere between the two.

In any case, since I do strategy...since that is my thing, I view Civ3 (and in truth, any game I purchase) as a puzzle to be solved. What methodologies can be put into effect during the course of a given game by a player such that stunning victory will be the result?

In SMAC (a venerable game that is still, to this day, on my hard drive, btw), the answer to that question is no less than eight dramatically different paths to victory. Eight remarkably different ways of playing that will lead to the same desired result....and possibly more than eight, but I've discovered eight thus far, and in the case of SMAC, six of those eight revolve around different ways to attack the climbing of the tech tree.

In Civ, I have found really only two different ways of approaching the game, and here's why: It all boils down to tech advances.

Tech advances are the life blood of the game.

Without tech advances, there is no victory.

This is not to say that you need tech advances for the army (as has already been proven to my satisfaction, you can win the game as late as the Industrial era with nothing more than bone-wielding warriors)....so that is not the answer. No...tech advances bring you coolio stuff to build in your cities. Stuff that increases efficiency and decreases corruption.

That's why tech drives the game.

On the higher levels of play, the AI WILL out-research you. That's a fact.

It's also a fact that they trade with each other like nobody's business.

This is the secret to unlocking the game, and the REASON that it's so linear in terms of play.

Because techs drive the game....because the AI will out-research you on the higher levels, and because they trade with each other, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that what one of your AI neighbors has, tech wise, so do the rest.

So...given that basic structure of the game, it can be said that the game FORCES YOU down one of two paths.

The goal is to keep up, technologically. You can either rush for the Great Library, relying on the massive trading that's occuring between the AI civs to keep you in the tech race, OR, you can set your research slider to zero (why bother, you can pilfer tech faster than you can research it....might as well grab the extra money, right?), and go beat the h*ll out of one of your neighbors till he cries uncle. When he cries uncle, you agree to ease up....in exchange for every tech he's got.

But of course, if you spend too much time focusing on one individual civ, then the others will achieve critical mass and start getting entrenched in their territories, and it'll be a big hassel to get them un-entrenched, so the MOMENT you get the first civ to cry uncle, it is in your best interest to turn the army around (upgrading to better troops now that you have some techs in hand), and go hunting for the next largest of your neighbors?

Why?

Because the fundamental situation has not changed! Tech STILL drives the game, and the AI will STILL outresearch you.

The reason I made the statement that it really doesn't matter what you research is because it is far, far easier on the higher levels of play to simply steal the tech from others. Whatever you happen to get will inform you of your next move (because although it is possible to beat the enemy with warriors, it is not terribly efficient to do so....after all, efficiency is all about making the best use of the resources available, and since you're not researching, you have money to upgrade your troops once you GET better tech....and, you now know where certain juicy resources are...so again, your course is decided for you.

The most efficient way to beat your enemy is to rob him of his ability to fight back. Thus, you target his iron and horse resources. Once deprived of those, it's like taking candy from a baby, cos you hold all the important cards, regardless of their production and research advantages.

There's a reason that your next largest AI neighbor is the largest, and it probably has to do with his access to more and better resources, so...you go hunting, and you strip him of every resource and luxury he's got.

Why?

Not because you need them (well, you need the luxuries for the happiness effect, but the other resources are simply a bonus for you and a matter of efficient conquest).

Wash. Rinse. Repeat, until you are alone on your continent.

And once you have reached that point, it's a simple matter of finding the "other" continent (cos most of my games are played on standard sized worlds with 8 civs, and generally there's four civs on two large continents), and do it again.

Game.

The choices you mentioned are certainly valid, but because of the rate of the AI's research, and because of the small sizes of the "per age" tech trees, those amount to tactical choices more than strategic choices. The AI researches so fast on the higher levels that even if you gain a marginal edge on some tiny branch of the tech tree, you don't have sufficient time to really start exploiting it before the AI has it too.

Alternately, at the point where you have secured the continent you started on for yourself, you CAN settle in and simply play the builder game, cos at that point, with the AI civ's sharing roughly a quarter of a continent, and you in the driver's seat of an entire continent, you CAN keep pace with them research and production wise, and then some. Which puts you in the position of being able to simply choose your victory type, and keep an eye on the weaker civs on yonder continent, building them up so that the larger, stronger civs don't dominate that continent.

And that's what the game boils down to for me.

The mechanics of the game are such that it ENCOURAGES and REWARDS that style of play, and harshly punishes any other.

Why work against the game itself? That's my philosophy.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

Vel, I don't get that statement about SMAC-X. You say that there are 8 different ways to win. There aren't these games are all the same Outresearch the opponent.

[Velociryx]

Tuber - True...BUT...in SMAC/X, it is possible to research your way to a significan tech lead and do so in such a way that you can gain a long-term *strategic* advantages from your research choices....thus, the game plays out very differently if you, say gun for:

* Restriction Lifting
* Bio-Engineering
* Mobility techs early
* MMI
* Fusion
* Crawler beeline

You get VERY, dramatically different games with each beeline.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

So, basically, you are saying that all Civ 3 needs is more techs, which will lead to more choices?

All the Civ games have been this way.

SMAC had the advantage of not following a timeline, ALL of their techs were imaginary.

Civ, by it's definition, doesn't really have that luxury.

[Velociryx]

It would take slightly more than that....

In my mind, Civ needs:

A more realistic combat model that precludes you winning the game on the strength of warriors vs. industrial age opponents

More tech tree choices in each age, such that researching a specific BRANCH of an age-specific tree actually nets you more than a tactical advantage

No "speed bump" techs that provide no tangible bonuses

A more robust interpretation and implementation of the concepts of Culture and Strategic Resources

That would be a fine start, yes.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And, I should add that it would not be hard to flesh out the "per-age" tech trees.....wouldn't have been hard when they were making the game, and in fact, modders have been doing that very thing.

For a FANTASTIC overview of some tech expansions, I highly recommend Aussie_Lurker's notes on the subject in the Mod section....

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

I'll take a look.

I have to admit that in the previous civs, and in SMAC-X, I always played a builder role.

So, with Civ 3, I'm actually HAVING to fight wars that I very well could lose.

I like the game for that reason alone.

[asleepathewheel]

Velociryx,

I understand your point, and I understand more of how you arrived at your opinion of Civ3. I will always just be a leisurely gamer, but I can respect those who pick games apart.

Good luck with your own game, I hope that it can give you what other games can't.

(and perhaps when I get a chance, I will pick up my copy of SMAX and try some other strategies)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx

A more realistic combat model that precludes you winning the game on the strength of warriors vs. industrial age opponents
-=Vel=-

I'm not sure I understand. You believe that you can beat my infantry and artillery with warriors? Or even infantry commanded by the AI?

Assuming veteran, flat terrain and no fortification:

Warrior v. Rifleman 1/132
Warrior v. Infantry 1/730

With artillery bombardment, fortification, town walls, rivers, cities or metropolis's, the odds are far worse. How could you ever take a defeat a city defended by just two infantry?

Warrior v. Infantry fortified in city 1/4762.

[Max]

Velociryx,

I understand what you're saying about this frustrating experience with science we all got when moving to higher levels of play. But there is one way to decrease the importance of tech trees in CIV3.

As you said: "the AI will out-research you on the higher levels, and because they trade with each other, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that what one of your AI neighbors has, tech wise, so do the rest". The fact is the less neighbors there are, the less they abusively trade sciences with each other. So the solution is quite obvious for me.

I got used to playing with tiny or small maps with something like 4-5 civs. Not only I can rival with the AI tech discovering fastness, but the whole game is quicker : for me it's just more fun !

I hope this can help.

BTW I feel quite sad that many people here don't appreciate at its full value the efforts Firaxis made to get close to the players and their desires. There are not so many games in this situation. Of course they did not answer to all our demands (go and check in the apolyton archive when CIV3 still was under development : the list is soooo huge!) but I think we blame them too often and too easily.

Damn! Civ3 is more than a decent game!!!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Vel, I don't get that statement about SMAC-X. You say that there are 8 different ways to win. There aren't these games are all the same Outresearch the opponent.

Tuber,

There are some very interesting ways to play the game of SMAC sans research.

Conquest methods include

Native rush requires no techs for Dee

Miriam with most of her allocation to energy (i.e. research off) using probes and attack bonus is yet another. "course this seems to be the path taken for CIV3. (Turn off research pump up your treasury and go to war. Get peace treaty get techs.)


The upshot is SMAC offers many different avenues of victory whilst CIV3 has cut those options down significantly.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, its more than that. Gameplay depth in SMAC is deep.

Example: Playing a game and looking for my opponent to use nerve gas noodles and choppers to whack my bases to nothing. So I build worms, the Neural Amp project and switch to green SE.

There is nothing like that in Civ3, least that I can find. Combat is brute strength AFAIK.

[Zachriel]

Reminds me of another strategy game I have played, Chess. It only has one victory condition, and every game plays almost exactly the same.

1. First, nearly every game starts with a pawn move.

2. Then you move your other pieces trying to position them for best mobility. First your knights, then your bishops, then your rooks. And movement is stupid. What is with those armored knights jumping all over the place. Don't the gamemakers know how heavy armor is? The horse would probably break its leg doing that.

3. Then you attempt to use brute force to gain an advantage by destroying as many of the enemy's units as possible. And combat is just plain silly. A pawn can kill a knight, or even a rook.

4. Finally, every game ends by trapping the enemy king. No nukes, no biological warfare, just trap the king and that's it. Every single game!

[Velociryx]

Well Zachriel, that got my afternoon off to a good start! Thank ya!

I've never heard Chess having been described as a 4x game, but it was an interesting analogy....

-=Vel=-

[Fitz]

Which is why, Zach, I never play chess anymore. It's boring. And I certainly never managed to master the game, not by a long shot.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Fitz
Which is why, Zach, I never play chess anymore. It's boring. And I certainly never managed to master the game, not by a long shot.

I know. The game has no "legs." It'll never catch on.

[Fitz]

Despite your sarcasm, I agree that chess doesn't have the legs that most people seem to think it has. I started playing when I was about ten, and was bored by 15, although I still played the occasional game until 2-3 years ago. Compare that to SMAX. I started when I was 23 (I think) and now still play it at 26, although it is starting to lose interest slowly except as multiplayer. That's three years on a game that has nowhere near the legendary status of chess, compared to 5 for the "game of games" (okay, that's really Go, but ::shrug:: )

Chess is a very good game. But it is boring as hell once you reach a certain level (i.e. the one where you stop improving), as are most games, but particularly in chess due to the lack of ingame variety (as you described). One major difference is how long it takes to reach that level. Chess takes a while (about 5 years in my case) because even though it is a relatively shallow movement game, it is complex in the stratagies. SMAC took a while too for me, because even though it is complex in movement, it is relatively complex in stratagies (not nearly as much as chess though). Despite that, even once you stop improving in SMAC, you can still have a fair whack of fun due to the variety of units/govs/techs.

CivIII won't take too long because it is way less complex than SMAC in strats (and therefore chess ), and will quickly become boring once these are tapped out because of the lack of ingame variety.

[Theseus]

Vel,

I am actually kind of getting pissed off here. I don't mean to offend... I am a tremendous admirer of your commentaries, thought processes, strategies, Candle'Bre, etc.

But you seem to have put blinders on, and that portends poorly for your vision for Candle'Bre... of gamers, by gamers, and for gamers.

You've basically said that you've cracked the code of Civ3, and that, upon examination, it is not "deep" or complex enough, and that your "one true path" is all there is to the game.

Besides my observation that you formed your opinions some time ago, and have not played enough post-1.21f to "feel" the difference in the AI (I know, I know, that's not the primary issue - read on), I see two fundamental flaws in your worldview (pun intended):

1. Limits to Depth

As Tuberski pointed out, Civ-type games, as opposed to fantasy or SF games, are fundamentally constrained to historical scientific, military, economic, governmental, and cultural concepts.

Now, that's not to say that there couldn't be MORE of them in Civ3, but that's not really what you're arguing about. You want strongly differentiated paths to success... well, that can't really take place within the constraints. In fact, I find the whole idea of exclusive differentiation, a la SMAC, faintly absurd... technology ALWAYS diffuses to civs that are capable and willing, and thus every civ should be availed of any and all technologies, units, government types, etc., within their then-current resource pool and tech development.

Look, in human history, pretty much everyone ended up using the horse as the primary mobile military force. This was due to utility and tech / resource diffusion. The only significant exception that comes to mind regarding utility was Carthage, but remember that elephants can only be tamed, and are not domesticable, which obviously limited their utility. There were no "Battle Cows" for the Romans, nor "Attack Kangaroos" for the Australian Aborigines. But over time, most everyone, at least those civs of enduring success, depended heavily on the horse and developing horse techs (think: stirrups). From Guns, Germs, and Steel: "That is, societies initially lacking an advantage either acquire it from societies possessing it or (if they fail to do so) are replaced by those other societies."

So in a game constrained by human history, and acknowleding tech diffusion, each civ's development CANNOT be all that different; instead, depth comes from the timing and interplay of every aspect of the game... much like chess (thank you, Zachriel), but with more variables. I think Firaxis has done a great job introducing as much differentiation as they have, given the constraints.

I acknowledge that in creating or playing a game where civs are forced onto a generally similar growth path, the number of different strategies will also be constrained... but for Civ-type games, as opposed to SMAC or Candl'Bre, that's just the the nature of the beast. It's also true, in a way, about most every game ever in human history, up until software games (with some exceptions). Chess, checkers, backgammon, bridge, poker, Monopoly, Scrabble, Risk... depth and complexity are not driven by differentiation of assigned capabilities, but rather by interplay.

OK, now on to the real issue...

2. The Framework that Vel Does Not See

So if depth, complexity, and differentiation of gameplay do not come primarily from the unique characteristics of individual civs, then where else should we look?

It's surely not difficulty level... I like how someone put it the other day, that's just setting the "against the odds" factor.

"It's the money, stupid." Err, ummm, that's not it.

It's the world.

Just as in RL, geographic environment and resources are determining factors in the course and success of a given civ, and in this case, differentiation of game-specific strategy and gameplay experience.

In RL, the geographies and timing of available food / animals / resources of Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas had a tremendous impact on the viability and evolution of different civs, and to a great extent determined the outcomes when the different civs collided.

That's all too fancy-schmancy. How 'bout this:

VEL, GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND PLAY WITH OTHER SETTINGS!!!

So you figured out a sure-fire darn-tootin' kick-ass approach to winning when you're on more or less standard settings, and on a continent with 3 other civs? Well, whoopdedoo for you.

Actually, I think that the typical, default environment (balanced landscape and 4 civs, ensuring enough of all resources and most luxuries, but small enough that the player can conquer it) is probably the most boring and unsatisfactory framework I can think of, especially for a player of your caliber. And it certainly is not mirrored by anything in history; rather, civs were typically at the ends of the spectrum, either isolated or, in Eurasia, faced with a land expanse that simply could not be effectively controlled.

I don't mean to get up in your face (much), but while you've been working on Candle'Bre, and not playing or actively participating in the Civ3 part of 'poly, a bunch of us have been playing around with the differences in game strategy / experience driven by world settings. And we are finding that it makes a huge difference... civ traits start to really matter, UUs start to matter, etc. Thus, differentiated experience game to game.

Example: Current game, Egypt, Large, Large Continents. I am on one of two continents, with 8 out of 11 other civs. Early war, oscillate, etc... yeah yeah yeah... and I am screwed, because I tripped the aggression flag for those 8 civs very early, the continent has been rocked by war for millenia, and it's too big to conquer. Net result, 3 of those civs are behemoths, and pissed at me. And they are significantly ahead in techs, which I can;t buy or beat out of them (yet), and which they won't share with the remaining vassals / punching bags because they are too weak, so I can't get'em there either. Additionally, resources / luxuries are an issue for everyone, as on Large with 12 civs the ratio of specialty tiles to total game tiles is much lower.

I created a situation where I actually don;t know what to do... and that's a good thing. And that's an example driven by only landmass as the key differentiator; moving ahead, I am sure that layering in other geographic settings will create significantly new game experiences.

Frankly, people have just been feeling their way towards these concepts... we could use you back here helping out.

Look, I agree with many of the other negatives pointed out by you and others; but the fundamental issue, differentiation of game play, while inherently constrained in a Civ-type game, is successfully addressed in Civ3.

Whether it's for Civ or for Candle'Bre, take off the blinders.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
. . . a bunch of us have been playing around with the differences in game strategy / experience driven by world settings. And we are finding that it makes a huge difference...

I fell in love with large or hug maps with 16 civs early on; after some frustrations on Archipelago maps, I started playing only continents, occassionally pangea; I also started playing "medium" geography settings (temperate, 4 billion, etc.).

Just recently decided to play, for the first time, on a tiny, random map (left the "medium" geography settings), simply because my time available for gaming has become so limited that a huge map game would last months and months. (Wound up with either "continents" or "islands - lots of land" )

I was very surprised (and pleased!) that the change in map size alone radically altered the game play! Now will spend more time playing purely random settings, as it certainly brings back some freshness to the game (although I hadn't experienced much staleness, myself ). Don't know if this would affect your view of the game, Vel.

** off-topic **
Vel, came across your strategy guides here at Apolyton shortly after I received the game as a gift -- many, many thanks for sharing your experiences with all of us

Zachriel, "Reminds me of another strategy game . . . " wonderful post, brightened my morning.

Catt

[Analyst Redux]

I only return to this forum every once in a great while, but this thread caught my eye because, well, I too think Civ 3 went wrong.

I'm no longer inclined towards long, explanatory posts why, but as long as I took the time to read a big chunk of this thread, I'll break lurker mode long enough to throw some agreement Vel's way. The only sensible way to play this game above Regent level is to set the reasearch slider to zero. Everything else is increasing your challenge level by fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

It's not difficult to see why, once you comprehend how the tech trading formula works. As long as you aren't obsessed with being on the cutting edge, buying tech is *always* economically cheaper than researching it yourself. This rule applies regardless of world size, or any other map setting. So Thesus' observations about map-tweaking leading to different game flows are not a direct rebuttle of Vel's central point. The best strategy is *always* set the research slider to zero and generate coin. There is no second-best strategy, just this and all the rest.

Against human opponents, this wouldn't work, but that's rather a moot point isn't it? (He say's, unsubtly working in a no-MP dig...)

On the AI: I'm a bit disappointed to see that my earlier posts drawing a relationship between the streamlining of the game and the simplification of its rules, and the "improved" AI don't seem to have remained within the institutional memory of Apolyton. Those posts were extensively discussed, and as far as I know, never rebutted. Ah well, fame is fleeting. The nut is that it's easy to appear smarter if you've got fewer choices to make, and most of those choices matter less than before. Apply some Kentucky windage to AI "strategy" which accounts for that, and I have a hard time seeing much improvement in AI from prior versions.

I hope Vel doesn't waste time on the advice that he has to play a lot of 1.21, because he'll just waste enough time to discover what I did: that the reigning in of AI-tech-trading agression didn't have any practical effect on the dominance of the no research strategy.

I came back here to see if there was going to be any more attempts at patching the game, but with all the talk being about the expansion pack now, I guess the patching is over and the refinement of the game is pretty much done. That's a shame. For me, this is the first one that simply hasn't ever worked out to my satisfaction.

[Theseus]

AR,

I am unable to buy techs or beat them out of anyone. Any suggestions?

[Zachriel]

Over at CivFanatics, the Game-of-the-Month was on Deity level. I played with Tech at 10% and won. Meanwhile, Sullla played with tech at 100% and won.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumd...?s=&forumid=49

There is definitely more than one way to play Civ3.

[Arrian]

Some people enjoy Civ III, others don't. Vel and AR are powergamers. They derive their gaming fun from picking the game to pieces as quickly as possible - searching for the most basic, straightforward path to victory. Vel loved SMAC because he discovered that there were 8 such paths that were approximately equal in power. Vel got bored with CivIII because he discovered that one of the viable paths was most often much more powerful than the others.

I, and many others, are not strictly powergamers. I, too, have discovered that War/Build/War is the most powerful stategy most of the time (hence my conversion to warmonger), but I still enjoy the hell out of the game. Why? Because I enjoy fine-tuning a strategy to death before trying another. I started off playing the Babs as a peaceful builder. Played them for a couple of months. Then Egypt for a couple of months. Now Japan as warmongering bastard for the past couple of months. And the variation between the strategy choices, civ strengths/UU's, and the random maps are enough variety for me. I also do not have a problem with deliberately choosing a strategy (or tactical decision) which is suboptimal. Example: city spacing. I recognize that building cities 2-3 squares apart is powerful as all hell. I will not do it. Thus, technically, I am choosing a non-optimal strategy with regard to my city spacing. This is something Vel can't really stand doing, because he knows the other way is more powerful.

I also have kinda changed the win conditions. I seek the "game of ultimate power." If you are curious as to what I mean by that, I've explained it at length in the strat forum. Essentially, I don't just want to win, I want to totally dominate the game, start to finish. And I've been honing my ability to do this with the Japanese, using standard settings, over and over. I'm not getting bored with it. When I start to, I will either change civs, or start messing with the map settings (which may result in a change of civs, we'll see).

The argument is pointless. For those that like CivIII, why waste your time on it? For those who don't.... umm, Vel, aren't you supposed to be making your own game?

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Theseus….thank you. That was an insightful, well-considered post (of course, had it been anything less than that, coming from you, I’d have been disappointed!). Lots of passion in that post…good to see. And thank you for the kind words (and the fact that you obviously read my (incomplete) story over on the Civ3 Story section. I had almost forgotten about “Battle Cows.”

Let me start by saying that it was never my intention to piss anyone off with these observations, but having made them and read the many responses, it’s clear that my way of looking at the game is quite different than most. For better or worse, that’s one thing I *do* seem rather good at…bein’ different.

Blinders. Am I wearing them? I’m not sure. Possibly….possibly. I don’t think so, but I acknowledge that the potential exists.

The impact of tech diffusion in-game:
I would contend (using our own Earth as the “prime historical model” that it IS possible for a certain civ (or group of civs) to generate a significant technological lead over rival civs.

If you take Earth as she exists today, and call each country presently here a “civ,” then if technological diffusion is indeed rampant, we should see nearly as many Afghani satellites orbiting the earth as we do American.

Or, to look at a closer pairing, we should expect to see as many Canadian satellites orbiting the planet as American.

This is clearly not the case, so there are some clear limits to the sum-total of technological diffusion that can and will occur.

Thus, my position would be that in a game set up (at least on a certain level) to be a ‘historical sim,’ it should be possible for one civ to generate a commanding technological lead over another.

With the state of the tech tree as the game shipped, this is simply not a possibility on Monarch and above (it is possible on Regent…I’ve had Mechanized infantry when my next nearest competitors were still upgrading their knights to Cavalry, but that’s about as good as I’ve been able to get on Regent…roughly one age of separation), and the sad part is, it would be easy to fix!!! All you’d need to do is flesh out the teeny branches of the tech shrubs, and you could actually get some solid strategic advantages under your belt (if, hand in hand with that, you toned down the AI’s neurotic NEED to trade with each other).

Examples:
Add in a “Stirrups” tech (3/2/2 Horse unit) that maybe had Horseback riding and (fill in the blank with something interesting here…not Iron-working, as that would give you both the ancient-era power techs, which would be too linear, and consolidate all the military power along a singular beeline.

Add in an “Advanced Masonry” tech, maybe somewhere off of Mathematics or something that was a dead end branch, but by researching it, you could make all future builds for 10shields less….TALK about a choice! Now you’ve really got a choice here! Do you beeline straight for the military techs, or make for that sweet price-reducing builder tech? THAT’s the kinna thing that can really have some long term impacts on your game.

Maybe add in a tech just off of map making that gives you an “Early Explorer” unit (1/1/1 colorless, that can attack other units, but is not allowed/not able to attack cities)….this would be the PERFECT unit to station in/near your borders to snipe at those annoying waves of settlers the AI sends to encroach on your territory…colorless, so they don’t provoke a war….

Any number of tech advances that would just slightly extend or expand the tiny tech branches on the per-age tree that, if coupled with some taming of the AI’s tendency to trade would open up some real possibilities as far as long-term gains for specific research paths.

Now it’s true, interaction is another opportunity for Civ to shine where depth is concerned, and for interaction to truly be a force in Civ, one of two things has to be true….either the diplomacy model must be very deep and detailed, or the game must have multi-player functionality, so that human interaction can replace whatever the SP diplo-model lacks.

Sadly, neither of these conditions are currently met by Civ3. While the diplomacy model is adequate, it doesn’t win any awards, and (as I’m sure we all know), the game does not (yet) have MP capability.

I made this statement earlier, but I think it bears repeating here. For me at least, in-game depth is derived from presenting the player (me) with a problem, and providing an array of choices (the more the better) for solving that problem. Each potential solution will carry with it certain tradeoffs…positives and negatives, and I’ve got to live with the consequences of my choice.

The problem with defining depth by way of geography is that the solution to that problem is entirely linear. I need horses…I go where there are horses and settle. I need Iron…I go where there are iron deposits and settle. There is no choice there (well, there’s always the option of trading, but that is, in truth, far and away a sub-optimal choice…temporary fix at best, and that’s assuming you can find a civ willing to trade iron with you).

It’s true that the majority of my games have been played out using the standard map settings, and that there is some variance to be found by changing the map size, but mostly what I discovered is that at either end of the spectrum (tiny or huge), it breaks certain Civ Abilities (Expansionistic is worse than useless on Tiny, and hatefully strong on Huge, esp. with Panagea maps)…likewise, Industrious is an absolute KILLER at either end of the spectrum…imagine being able to construct a ribbon of road from your area halfway across the continent with lightning speed, building offramps to every resource you find (now you’ve got 3x the speed of settlement of all your non-industrious rivals AND the ability to project your power across this vast continent at will)). Because of that, I have tried to stick to map settings where the traits were more or less balanced in their power.

I will readily agree that the “step” approach outlined earlier bypasses or ignores a great many of the tactical decisions to be made along the way, but by and large, I would contend that if you allow yourself to flow with the current of the game, you’ll find that all the major decisions are being made for you by terrain and circumstance (things like what techs you got after pasting your first victim…if iron, settle near iron, if horseback riding, settle near horses…it’s all spelled out for you…if you respond and react properly, you get rewarded, if not, you have a tough time) Playing the game (apparently?) as the designers intended (or at least as the designers reward lavishly) sees you making relatively few strategic level decisions beyond choosing your starting civ and map size. Tactical decisions, yes…there are more of these, but those alone do not satisfy my appetite for high-level decision making throughout the course of the game. I really, truly wish they did, cos I feel…almost left out. I feel as though despite my best efforts and wishes to find reasons to adore this game…the magic just isn’t there for me.

But…I do keep an eye on the forums, and if there’s something that turns out to be particularly vexing, I’d be happy to offer my two cents worth…

-=Vel=-

PS: Analyst – I recall with fond memories your deconstruction of the game, and find myself in total agreement…while it’s true that the AI’s success is due at least in (large?) part to the fact that there are fewer in-game choices to be made, I still gotta hand it to Soren…to write a competent, often surprising AI in the timeframe he did….that’s some pretty amazing coding…

PS: RP/Theseus – If it was me in your current situation, I’d be weighing my options between these two possibilities: First, I’d gift enough border towns to a former punching bag to get them “just big enough” to be considered a viable tech trading partner by the other big dog AI civs….once they start getting an influx of new tech, re-smash them and reap the benefits.

Barring that, if they’re entrenched and that much bigger than you, I’d make it a point to kill off all the little satellite civs you may have surrounding you before MPP’s come to the fore, and then work on improving relations with one of the big AI’s and get them involved in a multi-front war….or, if you’re feeling cheesy, ROP blitz the biggest of the two….

-v.

PPS: Arrian...good to see you here bro! And I think your post quite nicely summed up the differences...it's mostly about player likes and dislikes...and you're quite right...the thing that I really get into is finding multiple paths to victory that are about equal in their power and then perfecting the lot of them at once...stressing and stretching them to get that extra little bit of juice out of the collective set. That there is no such collective set in civ3 is my biggest beef...you hit the nail SQUARELY on the head (spooky that you know me so well....)
-v.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Theseus
It's also true, in a way, about most every game ever in human history, up until software games (with some exceptions). Chess, checkers, backgammon, bridge, poker, Monopoly, Scrabble, Risk... depth and complexity are not driven by differentiation of assigned capabilities, but rather by interplay.

But that interplay is between players -- human players -- of the game and there is the satisfaction of wining. Ego is involved in those games, for better or worse, you want to win and don't want to lose in front of someone else. No one rushes out to buy computer backgammon, scrabble, pure-cheesy, or monotony. (thanks Ren and Stimpy)

When you play a computer game against a computer opponent, you care if you lose, but victory is less satisfying. there's no one to show or share your victory.

The fun in playing a computer opponent comes from puzzle solving, finding a unique solution to a problem. That's where depth is important in a computer game. Remember these are --strategy -- games. In civ III there is only one strategy -- War, and not just war, but War qua war.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
I, too, have discovered that War/Build/War is the most powerful stategy most of the time (hence my conversion to warmonger), but I still enjoy the hell out of the game. Why? Because I enjoy fine-tuning a strategy to death before trying another. . . . I also have kinda changed the win conditions. I seek the "game of ultimate power." -Arrian

YES, Arrian!

I rarely even "finish" games. When I do, I usually take the earliest possible victory condition. I certainly don't milk the score -- ever.

I will set a goal, for instance, Sistine Chapel. When the Sistine Chapel is complete, the game is over. If I built it, I win. If the AI beats me to it, I lose. Other goals include a rapid expansion, an early war, or the decimation of a hated enemy. Sometimes, I play for "ultimate power." Sometimes, I play on a small map for a quick game of ancient conquest. Sometimes, I play on a large map for some industrial-style destruction. Sometimes, I play islands for some naval invasion strategy, or the formation of a trading empire. The standard Civ3 victory conditions are just a small part of the game for me.

Mostly, I play for fun.

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Theseus
AR,

I am unable to buy techs or beat them out of anyone. Any suggestions?

Yes, take your game back to the store and demand a refund. Someone sold you "Red Alert" and told you it was "Civilization".

OK, seriously, I can't reply sensibly to this post because, short of archipeligo starts where I'm isolated on an island, I've never encountered a situation where I could neither buy techs nor beat them out of enemies.

Vel: Nice to know someone remembers

Various others: I don't dispute, deny or contest anyone else's willingness and ability to tweak their long-term creative fun out of this game. But inherent in the responses to this critique is the reality that long-term fun must be teased and tweaked from this product. It just doesn't present it willingly or naturally. That's undeniably a step backward for this product line, and the designer who's name graces the box.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Analyst Redux


Yes, take your game back to the store and demand a refund. Someone sold you "Red Alert" and told you it was "Civilization.

Actually, Civ 3 really should have been called "Soren Johnson's CULTURE" - because that is what it is.

Civ 3 is NOT a descendant of Civ 2. They are too different. And that's too bad.

[Theseus]

OK, in my little Coracle-fest, something interesting to talk about.

Thanks, Coracle, for bringing this up...

Civ3 is NOT a descendant of SMAC. It is clear that there are a whole bunch of people who wish that it were.

Civ3 IS the inheritor of the Civ line. All the crap you complain about? Every version has gone through its own sub-branch evolution.

Again, the culmination of this branch of evolution will be PTW, which will take strides forward from the equivalent culmination of Civ2...

In other words,

You killed my father... prepare to die.