Having a hard time shifting from Civ2 to 3 - Page 2

Capt Dizle · June 20, 2002, 02:54

Well, here is something that I would like explained.

A city can be affected by culture to the extent it can flip in relatively few turns, but a settler can walk around in the midst of my civ for 2,000 years and never be affected?

Tourists to the US can't resist McDonald's for more than 6 hours. Give me a break.

notyoueither · June 20, 2002, 03:43

OK. Which limb?

MarkG · June 20, 2002, 05:24

Quote:

Well, here is something that I would like explained.

A city can be affected by culture to the extent it can flip in relatively few turns, but a settler can walk around in the midst of my civ for 2,000 years and never be affected?

it's a game

TCO · June 20, 2002, 15:11

mark, in civ2, different civs had different settings for expansion and warlikeness

SomeOneElse · June 20, 2002, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

Well, here is something that I would like explained.

A city can be affected by culture to the extent it can flip in relatively few turns, but a settler can walk around in the midst of my civ for 2,000 years and never be affected?

it's a game

Gangerolf · June 20, 2002, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

It's a well known term, and easy to figure out.

It means the AI SPEWS OUT settlers all over the place in huge amounts, and they settle everywhere in a crazy land grab.

ah so the settlers don't HAVE diarrhea, they ARE the diarrhea

thanks

Andemagne · June 20, 2002, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Tourists to the US can't resist McDonald's for more than 6 hours. Give me a break.

after purchace of Civ3 I have played more Civ2 then 3.
same thing with SMAC.

MarkG · June 21, 2002, 02:59

Quote:

in civ2, different civs had different settings for expansion and warlikeness

never noticed such a thing

Harovan · June 21, 2002, 03:25

About "settler diarrhea" in Civ3... The AI civs expand quickly towards the "optimal number of cities" setting in the editor and stops then with the expansion. Who increases this setting in his "mod" to lower the effects of corruption and waste, is himself responsible for an increased "settler diarrhea".

Tamerlin · June 21, 2002, 10:08

Hi GP,

It seems this thread is drifting away from "I have some trouble playing Civ3 after having played Civ2 for such a long time" to "CivX is better than CivX" or "this feature sucks in CivX".
Let me write a post about the initial subject (and some others a bit OT to be in the tone).

I have played Civ2 for a long time and then CtP2. I must admit I had less trouble to adapt to CtP2 than Civ3 though many features (tech, improvement) of the later are close to its predecessor's ones.

First, I decided to discover the new concepts and features through the tutorial, the game proved very interesting though the AI was of course no match at this level. At the end of the game I had mixed feelings, a very good game though not as fun as Civ2 and CtP2.
I knew one thing for sure, I would have to give this game a second chance.

One week ago I decided to play a Civ3 game again. Not particularly confident in myself I selected Warlord as the Difficulty. The AI civs expanded very quickly and choked me around 0 AD. A bit irritated, I don't like to loose against a "Warlord" AI, I immediately started a new game in which I was determined to be more cautious and careful. Once again, shortly after 0 AD, I was overwhelmed by the expansion of the AI and its ability to produce tens of units. I started again... same result...

At this moment I thought I had missed something and came back to Apolyton for a few strategical hints. Not wholly satisfied with the threads here (perhaps I haven't found the good one), I tried the Strategy thread of the "Civ Fanatics" and discovered the War Academy and an article named :"Faster Expansion: a Key Element of the Early Game" (if you are already fed up with my post you can find the link at the end of it). This article allowed me to understand why the core civ2 players can have some troubles at the beginning of a Civ3 game and give a "recipe" for a good start.

I then started a new game and applied the given "recipe" with success, I'am now around 1000 AD, I've successfully resisted to two wars and I'am about to teach a lesson to the aggressive Zulus. Thanks to this article, I'am now enjoying the game though I have some criticisms.

I already knew the AI intelligence was cheating in Civ2, as in many other games, and sometimes in a rather crude manner. In civ3, the AI civs are tough opponents because they are blatantly cheating. I'am not irritated by the fact the AI civs are cheating but by the way they are cheating.

Example : well before the AI civs discover the technology required, they are perfectly aware of the future location of the strategical resources they will need much later and send settler to create cities nearby. Rather strange to think about Salpeter when you are still using bronze for your weapons. In the same way, I'am not sure the resource distribution on the board is really random and fair, as is the initial location of our first settler I presume.
Whatsoever, I would have prefered a more subtle way of cheating.

OK, before I started playing computer games I was playing tabletop wargames and boardgames and this means I'am rather used to follow the same rules as my opponents. This could explain why I don't like a blatantly cheating AI, but once again this is rather the crude manner of cheating I dislike.

Wether the AI is cheating or not is not the point, the AI civs are tougher and this is a good thing.

My only complain comes from the fact the beginning of the game is rather mechanical and for many more turns than Civ2. Moreover I prefer to play with few cities as I don't like to manage tens of cities and hundreds of workers (especially at the end of the game), but the high expansion rate of the AI civs is urging you to build as many cities as you can to halt this overwhelming growth.

Oh, what ? You think I'am drifting away from the initial post ! Oh yes, you're right, forgive me please. Hummm !

If you are an old time Civ2 player and want some hints for the beginning of a civ3 game you should read this article :
www.civfanatics.com/civ3acad_fastexpand.shtml

By the way, I love Civ3 and CtP2 (the modded game is as tough as Civ3) and...

What ? I'am rambling again ? Sorry gentlemen.

Have a nice week end !

Tamerlin · June 21, 2002, 10:18

The link to the article doesn't work but the http address is good, I have checked.

WarpStorm · June 21, 2002, 10:48

You got it right, Sir Ralph. Once they hit the optimum cities they stop building cities totally, even when it would make sense. They start with colonies at that point. I was playing on a huge map and once a few of the players got knocked out over half of the world was unsettled. They wouldn't put a city near oil or rubber, just colonies (which I grabbed by putting a city there, which is not an act of war).

I play at least as aggressively as the AI with respect to land grabs. I put cities in the desert (there might be oil there later), same with jungle (rubber), tundra (oil), and mountains (coal and iron, well actually near the mountains). Why not fill up the map (until corruption sets in)? Even a pop 2 city in the tundra can produce dozens of culture points a turn.

Arrian · June 21, 2002, 11:21

There is another way to deal with the AI land-grab:

Basically ignore it, build a good core group of cities, and start pumping out attack troops. Then start breaking things.

If you know what you're doing, it works rather well.

-Arrian

SpencerH · June 21, 2002, 11:50

I am constantly surprised by the comments made by people who've played civ2 but are surprised by and dislike the AI "land-grab". I always did that in every civ/smac game in order to counter the AI build advantages. In civ3 the AI just does what I (we) do and since its build advantages are less than in earlier versions it all works out.

FrankBullit · June 21, 2002, 12:45

I started playing Civ 3 on Monarch level, determined to learn thru the school of hard knocks. After getting my butt kicked roundly for many times, I was finally able to put forth the lessons that I was learning. As such, the game has exploded in its addiction for me and I now continually post high scores, always playing at the Monarch level. The game is much more tight in its AI than Civ 2 was, and I have discovered that Civ 2 no longer has any compulsion for me. All I can say is, "Persistance pays off!"

Tamerlin · June 21, 2002, 12:59

SpencerH : I've never used the "land grab" tactic in any civ like game. As I told it before I don't like managing tens of cities and hundreds of workers.
Moreover, I'am rather reluctant to name a governor in a city or to allow the workers to be managed by the AI, this is certainly because the Civ2 AI was terrible on this ground.

I prefer playing with few high population cities focusing on science and production.

A good point for civ3, I have to adopt a different strategy which renew the interest of the game, I appreciate the tougher AI opponents though I would have prefer they cheat less blatantly.

Arrian · June 21, 2002, 13:14

Tamerlin,

Play on small maps, then. Seriously, that's why I don't play on Huge maps (I stick to Standard, with an occasional foray up to Large).

-Arrian

Tamerlin · June 21, 2002, 13:29

I know, I know Arrian, thanks for the advice.

I've always played Civ2 on a large map because it let me more time to build my core cities before I meet the AI civs (at least I believe it was the case). But the Civ3 AI civs are looking for new territories so aggressively this is no more appropriate.

Though the idea seems strange to me, I will try a game on a small map.

Panag · June 21, 2002, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
My sister has Civ3, so i tried it out. I had a hard time getting into it. Civ2 is more addictive.

hi ,

wait till you get the hang of it , .....

have a nice day

SpencerH · June 21, 2002, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Tamerlin
As I told it before I don't like managing tens of cities and hundreds of workers.
Moreover, I'am rather reluctant to name a governor in a city or to allow the workers to be managed by the AI, this is certainly because the Civ2 AI was terrible on this ground.

I prefer playing with few high population cities focusing on science and production.

Tamerlin, just so you know, I wasnt specifically commenting on you. You just brought it up in my memory.

I dont use the managers either. I dont REX and I usually get up to 20 cities or so by mid game but I dont bother to micromanage either. I just sort of crank out certain build prefs its very easy especially with the build cue. Once I'm up to a reasonably advanced size empire I SHIFT-A the workers and that problem is pretty much gone too.

I never played the 1 city game with civ2. How do you stop the AI from obliterating you ? Expansion as the key to success was my first (maybe only) lesson to victory.

GeneralTacticus · June 22, 2002, 01:14

Quote:

No one anymore believes the AI could fairly build all these settlers without a little cheating, in otherwords, freebies.

Coracle, I can out-expand the AI on Regent and Monarch w/o cheating. It just requires a lot of focus on expansion.

Phil_de_geezer · June 22, 2002, 07:06

I think the reason a lot of people liked Civ2 was that it was so damned easy. You could apply ANY strategy you wanted and it would almost always work out. There was no pressure in civ2 - it was like "right, i'm going to play peaceful in this game". Then you'd build a decent sized empire and city walls in all your cities and sit back, safe in the knowledge that the ai would NEVER take a single city. In all my civ2 playing i only ever lost a city once to the ai (many more to barbs!).

Civ2 just massaged your ego by allowing you to completely dominate the game. But hey it was fun!

Disclaimer: i am not in any way suggesting civ2 is better than civ3.

Panag · June 22, 2002, 08:23

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Coracle, I can out-expand the AI on Regent and Monarch w/o cheating. It just requires a lot of focus on expansion.

hi ,

exactly , ..

maybe Coracle wants to say all the free ubits the AI gets with the start , or the higher the level the faster they can build , .....

but the AI can be beaten , even on deity , ....

have a nice day

HazieDaVampire · June 22, 2002, 08:30

lol, what about changing from RTS to TBS. I've done some really stupid things, like sit there waiting for my workers to finish a job and after 5 mins realizing exactly how stupid i am!

And that cheat thing would be cool, making your self insanely large (militery wise), then swapping over to you arch enemy and seeing what the AI does when its in control of your original civ!

Tamerlin · June 26, 2002, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Tamerlin, just so you know, I wasnt specifically commenting on you. You just brought it up in my memory.

No problem SpencerH, this debate is cool and the tone friendly.

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont use the managers either. I dont REX and I usually get up to 20 cities or so by mid game but I dont bother to micromanage either.

Even 20 cities is too high a number for me, I prefer around 12. This and the fact I'am not using the tactics the AI civs use in Civ3 are perhaps the reason why I don't play on higher difficulty level.