Do You Play Civ III ? - Page 3

SlowwHand · July 2, 2002, 19:00

I don't see where I said there wouldn't have to be fixes, Rah.
What I see me saying is Civ III SP kicks Civ II SP's ass, taking it down the road then; Civ III MP should do the same to Civ II MP.
It's only reasonable.

War4ever · July 2, 2002, 20:30

especially if i can attack with my horde of warriors and defeat your vet musketeers

see the warrior defence is alive and well

SlowwHand · July 2, 2002, 20:39

I doubt that will be the case, War4.
And like I've said, if you go all out attack for a long time, and don't win, then you suffer war weariness and are ripe for a counter attack, if one chooses to do so.
One could just fend off with defense, keep building science and culture improvements, and do fine.
Maybe win.

Hypothesizing, that's all.

War4ever · July 2, 2002, 21:05

win via culture

why must the church be included in games.....why don't they just have a tech called crowd control to appease the masses....

culture was interesting ....but kinda silly to me....

were culturally advanced b/c we build more temples/cathedrals/colliseums than your empire .....

rah · July 3, 2002, 08:50

With the simplified combat, sitting back in a defensive stand is considerably harder in CIV III. Keeping 2 or 3 good defensive units and 1 offensive unit in a city (like is common in CIV II) won't stop a horde of attackers. (like is common in CIV II) and that one offensive unit isn't going to take out a stack. (especially the way CIV III handles cats and artillary) 10 warriors attacking such a city are likely to be successful (unlike civ II)

This will drastically change how we play the game. While tech windows will still play a role, you don't need to wait for them to go on the offensive. Build you stack of 10 warriors and go have fun. Nothing early is going to stop them except another stack of 10 warriors, and you can't afford to put 10 warriors in each city. It will become more of a shell game. Being able to switch shells will become of critical importance. Being attacked from two sides could be devestating, (unlike now in civII)

RAH
This is why I hold some hope for CIVIII. Tactics will be much more important.

SlowwHand · July 3, 2002, 09:07

If y'all don't like, that's fine; but there's more to the world, and Civ, than what some like to dwell on.
If you're all content to ICS and have no other factors involved, great for you.

rah · July 3, 2002, 10:27

God, I hope you were responding to someone else's post with that one Sloww, because otherwise it made no sense what so ever.

RAH

SlowwHand · July 3, 2002, 11:30

I wasn't responding to your holding out hope, Rah.

SlowwHand · July 3, 2002, 11:34

One thing I feel I need to disagree with War4 on is the culture aspect.
It's the same as, I'm just using an example close at hand, Afghanistan and the USA, or whatever comparison you want to make.
Yeah Afghans, or whoever, are fierce fighters; but mix in some culture and have balance, and you have the USA, or whoever.

Yeah, I bet that's just clear as mud, huh ?

War4ever · July 3, 2002, 13:40

no i understand what your saying Slowwhand....i just think a cultural victory is a bit cheesey.....

i like the idea of culture...just not the way its implemented in civ3

as for ics...i haven't ics'ed in years

but the power of ics is amazing when you have 10 close cities are pinned in and have just discovered iron works after building STWA

but then again, civ is all about reading your situation and making the necessary changes on the drop of a dime and not looking back....

SlowwHand · July 3, 2002, 13:45

I'm with ya there. Always a new ripple in the pond.

War4ever · July 3, 2002, 13:49

Have you played a tribe match lately...i have heard nothing about tribes for a long time now

rah · July 3, 2002, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
as for ics...i haven't ics'ed in years

but the power of ics is amazing when you have 10 close cities are pinned in and have just discovered iron works after building STWA

STWA, didn't you know that makes you a bad player?

RAH

War4ever · July 3, 2002, 13:58

i forgot......all those caravans paying me 10-17 gold each while in monarchy is far better than my 10 vet legions walking along themountain tops and beelining for core cities

rah · July 3, 2002, 14:06

But don't you remember, Monarchy is a wasted tech also. I guess you just suck

RAH

War4ever · July 3, 2002, 14:12

Thats what i love about beeliners to republic....if you get screwed by techs....your really screwed.....but there is always the safety net of excuses to use after the fact for why you @ss was kicked

SlowwHand · July 3, 2002, 16:30

I'm not on the computer at night regularly, and when I'm on, it's on a crap connection.

SmartFart · July 5, 2002, 17:00

I liked it 1st 2-3 games. Then I got bored. It isn't even installed on my new machine.

War4ever · July 5, 2002, 19:14

agreed smart..mines not loaded either..glad i didn't play for it

SlowwHand · July 15, 2002, 16:36

I had to come back to this thread, because of the game I'm playing.
I've fought off attacks from several Civ's, some Civ's are history.
Egypt has been way ahead of the pack, but 3 cities (size 12 and two 9's) overthrew their government and came to me.
I just started laughing and had to quit playing, because I could hear War4 in my mind, just a cussing.

SlowwHand · July 17, 2002, 09:40

The only thing it will take to make III excellent in MP is to make the starting Civs randomly generated, keeping all else as it is.
Last thing I'll say.

DrSpike · July 17, 2002, 10:08

I'll bite. I think if the game stays the same for MP as it is for SP then MP will have problems.

If players start close then archer (even perhaps warrior) rushes will be too effective. There are effectively no ZOC, and no way to defend against a stack of attackers, except to have a stack yourself. Units and settlers will be the only things built - remind you of any civ2 settings? In fact it is worse here than 2x2x king in civ2 because the only decision you will have to make is how many cities to build, with a relatively low number useful under the corruption structure, because the game will likely not survive till corruption reducing buildings are in place.

Also what about resources? If the rushing doesn't end the game because the players are too far apart then the player that starts with iron nearby will win. People will build a few cities, perhaps barracks, then churn warriors to upgrade to swordsmen. They wont need tech after iron working (maybe the wheel and horsies) so they'll have plenty of cash for upgrades.

Markus calls 2x2x king RTS civ, which is, I think, a fair analogy. Civ3 MP will be more like RTS than 2x2x king ever was. I do think they will change the resource setup to give fair access to resources, so they don't decide the game, but at best the game will be a game of rush and counter rush, not civ. Many will prefer this, hey, a lot more people play RTS than TBS, but I think diehard civ2 MPers will be disappointed, even if Firaxis make the changes I outlined.

SlowwHand · July 17, 2002, 10:50

No Zone of Control ? I beg to differ.
Try building a city inside another's cultural zone, and see how long you keep the city, if the player is doing any culture at all.

The Iron part is a possibility. Ya never know though.
Ran-dom, ran-dom, ran-dom!

DrSpike · July 17, 2002, 10:59

You actually think people will build temples and libraries, and survive for long enough for borders to expand? Flipping and culture will play no role in MP. Besides that wasn't what I meant by ZOC; I meant units exert no ZOC making attack easier. Attack is also made easy by being able to stack and by the new hit point system. The result is obvious, early rushes prevail and no infrastructure will be built........unless something changes for MP.

SlowwHand · July 17, 2002, 18:39

I want to play you when it becomes MP.

DrSpike · July 17, 2002, 18:56

By all means

Seriously, I hope they will change the game enough to make MP fun. I think in the end it will be fun, but I don't see the gameplay unfolding the way you do. Still even if I am right it might work out........civ needs an injection of players, and making it more like RTS may help.

DrSpike · July 17, 2002, 18:58

Until then Slow play some of the comparison games I am in and see how your strats fare.

Right now I am playing the early landing leader (deity) game from the CF tourney..........join!

SlowwHand · July 17, 2002, 19:07

No, I suck at 3 actually. I can't even decide which Civ I even like.

DrSpike · July 17, 2002, 19:21

Then I'll forgive your backward views.

As for civs it depends...........for warlike games the militaristic trait and a good UU are most important, so Romans, Japanese, Zulu, Aztecs (and Iroquois for their UU alone) are the best here.

For a builder game Egyptians or Babylonians rock. Egyptians are particularly nice for deity builder games (hard), since you can chariot rush and settle down with some nice traits after grabbing some land.