Confession. I suck at Civ III.

[N. Machiavelli]

Not much else I can say that anyone else already has. If your goal is to win, then I would suggest the time-honored SSS(Settlers, Settlers, and Settlers) strategy. Civ3 was designed around the ICS frame of mind, which is why the AI blindly rushes to grab every square acre of land. So, do what they do, only smarter:

-Scout early and often and make sure that you are sending Settlers to every bit of decent land you can find. Grab every resource as quickly and often as possible.

-When dealing with other Civs, *buy* Maps, don't trade them. The AI behaves much differently if they 'legitimately' know your borders and the particulars therein than when they don't. If you keep your exploration findings to yourself, the comp is less likely to swarm across/around your borders to get at that one available tundra square that may or may not have oil in it 1000 years from then.

-"Contain" the AI. Even if a neighbor is your ally and settling rapidly on your border, send a military unit to shadow their Settler/Unit combination. If you have a military unit within a space or two of their settler, they are much less likely to plop down a city.


Warfare is extremely important as well. Knowing how, when, and where to conduct your wars against the AI as well as what to do with the spoils is, in my opinion, the cornerstone of success.

-First off, avoid prolonged wars like the plague. No matter what government you are in, the AI gov can outlast you. So make your wars quick, decisive, specific, and overwhelming.

-Scout, scout, scout. Then scout. Know where the resources in the civ's countries are. Find out where their only Iron/Saltpeter or Gems spot is. Know their capital and the chokepoints of their city pattern. Once you know this, you can fight a smaller, more effective war that will have longer effects than a drawn-out painful one.

-Fight your wars for a specific purpose/goal. If a neighboring civ has only one of a resource, strike that area first and hard. Plan your wars in the manner of quick strikes. Take out 3 or 4 key cities and garrison them with enough units to hold out until the Civ is ready for Peace. Then, wait 10 turns, gear back up and take 3 or 4 more cities. This can help in many ways. For one, it'll help your War-weariness to smaller doses that can lower in between the minor wars since you strike only to gain and consolidate, not fully conquer; thus, you have fewer and far-between casualties. Also remember: as long as you are making progress with fewer casualties, no matter how long it takes, you are still winning the war.

-Plan your wars. The amount of turns required to prepare for the war should massively exceed the time it takes to fight it. Know the layout and weak points of your enemies' land and build your forces according to your goals.


Diplomacy is a subject that has a couple of schools of thought. Some say to be as friendly to your neighboring civs as possible. Some others feel that the other civ's true purpose is to play against other civs using war alliances. If you plan to play in the way I describe above, I would suggest limiting your relationships with other civs at the cordial point. Avoid entering any MPP or war alliances. The reasoning for this is that while you are going to be fighting rapid wars (wherein your status with the opposing civ is likely to change every 10 turns), your ally is going to continue fighting until he/she or your opponent run out of steam. Making peace with the opposing civs while in an alliance hurts your reputation and your trade.

-Fight wars against one enemy at a time, whenever possible and even then, by yourself.

-Trade often with the AI, even if only for purchasing the occasional tech. This helps build up a good reputation. Also make it a note to trade (preferably a spare resource or luxury) to your opponent’s friends. If they are in as equal (and obligating, hence the resource/luxury trade) standing with you as your enemy, they are more likely to stay out of the war and let you to your own devices picking apart your enemy over the course of a century.

-Do not give away your map. Ever. It prevents you the ever-so-often gold bonus you get from selling it, but in the long term, it helps. It genuinely does effect the way the AI conducts wars against you and settles near you if it does or does not "know" what your land looks like. (Yes, I'm aware that the AI 'knows' the lay of the land right off the bat, but it's behavior seems much more ‘conservative’ in many respects when you have not revealed yourself to it.

Those are pretty much the base strats that help me the most. If I want to win at Deity, I pretty much do this. Now, if you really want to have some fun later, play a game like this:

Huge Map.
Pangea Config.
1 City Only (your capital is the only city you are allowed to build/hold)
Americans.
No aggressive wars (May not declare war upon any civ; when at war, may not attack units outside your culture borders. That includes enemy cities.)
No colonies.
No custom rules. Pure Random Map.

Try that once. I’ve played this one all the way through 6 times already and came out on top (Space Race) in 4 of them. The other two involved my getting crushed by 3 civs.

Now I’m off to look at Vel’s Guide in the hope that I didn’t inadvertently rip off anything from him (I’ve yet to read it. Maybe I’ll do that now.)

[Solver]

As for starting to play Civ 3:

No matter if you have played Civ for years, if you just got Civ 3, start at Chieftain. This is not Civ 2, this is not SMAC. Start at chieftain, and you'll probably be a little bit confused during your first game due to the new concepts. Just look, they change the gameplay dramatically. I'm not arguing here whether it's good or bad, but it's dramatic.

Then move up to Warlord, and stay there till you can beat the AI in fact every time at it. This is because Regent is a big step up - you no longer get production advantages over the AI, the AIs aren't this friendly anymore. This is where the things start to begin real interesting.

I play on Regent now. I've lost my 4 Regent games, but then I stepped back, rethought it all, and made a dramatic change in my gameplay, just like some others have.

As for my skills in other Civ games:

Civ1: I thought I'm great, but back then I didn't even dream about the Internet, so it was me, AI, and a couple of friends with whom I shared stories. Among them, I was the best, and I just loved going early Republic and snagging techs in 1 turn .

Civ2: I never actually liked the game, due to many things that I will sometime cover. However, I wsn't worse at it than I was at Civ 1 - I would, of course, beat Deity each time, but had little MP experience with Civ 2, and no MP experience with truly good players.

SMAC - while I don't even dream to be anything like Vel, I've certainly learnt the game well. Transcend was no challenge pretty soon, and SMAC actually wants you to play it much like Civ 2 (expand early, get defences, start researching), with a few important changes, the most notable of which probably was the Supply Crawler.

CtP - ahh, I used to suck completely at it, for I played CtP much like Civ1/2/SMAC for so much time, and I only very recently got used to the complete changes in CtP, and learned to play it in an OK way.

Civ3 - as I said, I play on Regent now, but, of course, I don't get to play it every day, and sometimes I make much longer pauses. However, I'm just starting to change my playstyle (finally realized I got to forget EVERYTHING from Civ 2), and I hope I will be a solid player in Civ 3. Looking forward to PBEM .

So, sorry for the long post .

[SlowwHand]

Well I played as Japan, and made no "friends" except for the stinkingass French.
They ended up massing on the border towards the end of the game and over-ran me.

No more Mr. Niceguy !

[SpencerH]

Japan is a good choice for your civ, religious and militaristic, and the UU is pretty good since you dont need horses to have a "knight".

The Babs are good at the lower levels because of the science benefit (which most people dont use at monarch and up). They've also got a pretty good early UU.

IMO the Aztecs and Zulus are the best for early game rushes especially at deity.

[Phil_de_geezer]

I find that the AI is absolutely merciless to weak civs - many times i've seen a civ have half their empire conquered and then the conquering civ will ally with everyone and anyone to finish them off. Like vultures i tell ya! Everyone wants a piece of the empire!

This aggression means you need to build a decent military.

[Harovan]

No more Mr. Niceguy !

You can be Mr. Niceguy in the industrial age and later. In the ancient age rush, rush, rush and conquer, like the huns. In the medieval age build up and try to repair your reputation .

[Arrian]

Better yet, destroy everyone you meet in the ancient age, before making contact with overseas civs. Then there is no reputation to repair If you meet civs on another continent after wiping out civs on your own continent, they will have no knowledge of your atrocities. Though it really doesn't make a big difference, I try to wipe out my neighbors by the early middle ages (pre-astronomy) for that very reason.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Actually, the Indians seem to be a good choice.
No specials needed for the War Elephant.
Nothing like needing iron for your Civ-specific units and not having it readily available.

[SlowwHand]

As much as I go back and forth here, you can imagine when alone.

[SpencerH]

I've played the Indians a fair bit and mostly won. I havent used the elephants that much though, they cost a bagfull of money to build.

[Harovan]

Ummm, Indians. If you like to be Gandhi, why not, go ahead. You'll have the best and worst traits together. What concerns War Elephants, well, they look impressive (even though the pic shows an African elephant and not an Indian ), but have no better battle statistics than their "normal" counterparts, the Knights. Iron isn't that scarce, and Horses never deplete. As was said, Japan is a pretty good choice for the beginning.

[nato]

I myself don't generally value the no resources required UU at all. It is really a kind of self defeating bonus. If you are doing well, you will have a lot of land and probably have the resource. The only way to not have the resource is to not have gotten the land, so if you are doing well, the bonus has no effect.

I am an all Japan player right now, for quite a while. I have never benefitted from not needing horses for samurai, because I've always had tons.

I'm just saying I wouldn't base my choice of civ on that at all. It can only help you if you don't have the resources, which is self defeating.

[jshelr]

I wonder a bit at why some of the more experienced players see a big difference between Monarch and Emeror levels. A little more atttention to keeping your citizens under control is needed. On Emperor you often don't get the flying start out of the ancient era and have to play catch up. But that is fun, too. By the industrial era it's more or less the same on any of the higher levels -- isn't it?

Diety, I would agree, very frequently sees you squeezed into an unmanagably tiny corner of the map and neighbors seem to be about ten units ahead of you shortly after the start. But I bet there are even some players who don't think Diety is a big difference. It might be just a matter of getting used to it.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by nato
I am an all Japan player right now, for quite a while. I have never benefitted from not needing horses for samurai, because I've always had tons.

True, since ironically the Japs are the only ones who see Horses from beginning and should stumble over a resource in most cases before other civs could even build a settler.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by jshelr
I wonder a bit at why some of the more experienced players see a big difference between Monarch and Emeror levels. A little more atttention to keeping your citizens under control is needed. On Emperor you often don't get the flying start out of the ancient era and have to play catch up. But that is fun, too. By the industrial era it's more or less the same on any of the higher levels -- isn't it?

It is. But at the same time, the difference between Monarch and Emperor is larger than, say, the difference between Warlord and Regent. Monarch to Emperor is a 9/8 jump in AI growth and production, while Warlord to regent is only a 11/10 jump. The jump from Emperor to Deity is huge, 8/6, and is about the same like Warlord to Emperor (11/8).

[SpencerH]

I played regent when I was testing a mod. I played monarch for a reasonable game, emperor for a test, and deity for an anurism.

[falsfire3401]

Originally posted by mwaf
BTW, I'm playing on a huge map with 15 civs+/me, is that considered difficult compared to, say, a standard size map with 7 civs+/me?

On any map size, playing with the max number of civs can be challenging if your start game skills are not up to snuff. You'll start alot closer to your neighbours, and thus bump into them sooner. If you're so unlucky as to have the Zulu, Aztecs, Germans, or Japanese as a close neighbour, they have a nasty tendency to turn aggressive real fast.

Try reducing the number of opponents til you can get your rapid-expansion early game down pat. I'd say, 1 or 2 rivals on tiny, 2-4 on small, 3-6 on standard, 7 for large and 8 or 9 on huge. Huge games take ALOT longer tho. I like standard map size, but play with the full load of 7 rivals, and there are *always* early game wars fought. I usually attack as soon as I can muster a force of 6 or so attackers (horseman and/or archers), take a couple cities, wait for and kill their counter-attackers, then sue for peace and take them to the cleaners.

[IRON_BRIGADE]

Originally posted by Arrian
Starting location is hugely important. Unless you are a "ironman" type who cannot stomach it, don't be afraid to utilize "ctrl+shift+q" if you find yourself in the tundra.

-Arrian

what does this mean, what does the combination of these keys do?

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by IRON_BRIGADE


what does this mean, what does the combination of these keys do?

It allows you to restart, to get a better location.

[Spiffor]

ctrl+shift+q means "start a new game"

[Simpleton]

Thank God somebody else finally posted what I've always wanted to do but was too inhibited!

All the other posts seem to be by people who have beat the game on diety the first week. Sheat, I have trouble on the second lowest difficulty! Of course, I've only really played perhaps 10 complete games.
But I won't use that as an excuse! I suck too!

But it's still a fairly good game!

Cheers to all us poor bastards!

[Panag]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Maybe it's because I greatly prefer MP, but I absolutely suck at Civ III.
The damned thing was a gift, but I broke down and bought the Stategy Guide, now I understand the game better. I still suck.

So all of you are great at it?
Beat the AI's as each Civ at the highest level?

hi ,

learning , and asking Q's , this is the way to go to the top , ...

it takes some time , its different from civ2 (MP) , ones addicted you dont want anything else

so , what you want to know that can help you more , ....

start on a small map , play as Romans , you can edit a map to give you resources , but its better you do not , ....max 4 players , you maybe want the tech rate a bit slower , and want to start with 2 of each , lowest level , if you make errors , dont worry , also give your self a couple scout's when you start , this way you can look , before you use them settlers , ...

so , what else , .......

allas , when MP for civ3 comes out , ....man that shall rock

have a nice day

[notyoueither]

Simpleton. Stick around.

What do you seem to have difficulty with?

[SlowwHand]

I started a new game at Warlord as Japanese.
So far, all is well. 2nd to the Persians, but it's close.
I built the Library and Leo's.
Put down an attack from the punkass French.
A Couple of Chinese and French cities came to me.
I'll move up slower.

[Panag]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I started a new game at Warlord as Japanese.
So far, all is well. 2nd to the Persians, but it's close.
I built the Library and Leo's.
Put down an attack from the punkass French.
A Couple of Chinese and French cities came to me.
I'll move up slower.

hi ,

well you wanted some advice , , , post a SAV(e) ones in a while , so that more people can help you , ....

have a nice day / night

[Richelieu]

Do you guys see trade as an essential element early on ?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Do you guys see trade as an essential element early on ?

hi ,

why not , sometimes is good for the cash , but watch out , imagine you give , huh , trade horses to a neighbor , that then use's it against you , ...

have a nice day

[SpencerH]

I try to trade away things that I will get back if we go to war like luxuries or resources for things that I wont give back like knowledge. I noticed that the AI did it a lot and decided to stop giving it something for nothing.

[Jaguar]

I sucked at civ 1. (Cut me some slack though, I was about 5 when I got the game. )

In civII, I could do whatever I wanted on deity and still win... including the size1 polar occ challenge.

In civIII, I'm working on winning deity with all the civs. Only 5 to go. But its much harder.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Simpleton. Stick around.

What do you seem to have difficulty with?

I will. I think the games ok and I will play it more but I'm too busy with school right now.
I think my main problem is inexperience as I haven't played too many games.
My main problem is the computer swamping me with attack units. I still play the Civ2 way where I could defend a city with one mech infantry and attack with 3 or 4 howitzers.
My strategy has to change and it is slowly. I now build many more units than I would normally. Obviously, the AI has forced me to change.

That's ok. I'll still play Civ3. Maybe I'll get a chance to start a game this weekend.
It all depends on my wife. We haven't done too much with each other the past couple of weeks and playing Civ is definitely not her idea of fun.

With luck I'll be able to hang out with her and start a Civ game.