Is there any hope for me?

[rwprice]

I "discovered" Civ about a year and a half ago and immediately recognized the possibilities for this type of game. I thought perhaps that this genre would be the one to keep me occupied for the forseeable future. I started with Civ2: Test of Time, followed up quickly by the Multiplayer Gold Edition, Alpha Centauri, Call to Power, and then Civ3. Since Civ3 came out, that's where I've spent most of my time.

Here's my problem. I love the idea of these games, but I can't seem to get to the point where I experience that "one more turn" feeling. I've written about this before, but it was back at the beginning of my journey. Now, I have a different theory, and I'm hoping you can help me validate it.

Although I spend most of my gaming time on Civ3, and have even kept up with all the patches, the amount of that time is very limited. I rarely get to spend more than 2-3 hours per week playing. Is that even enough time to figure out the complexities of this game? I find that I don't really start to enjoy a game until after I'm past the learning curve and able to concentrate on mastering the strategies of the game. I still feel like I'm trying to figure out what everything does and how it works, let alone working on mastering strategies.

The best analogy for me is always chess. In chess (which is a far less complex game than Civ, yet deeper), one can learn the basic movements of the pieces in 15 minutes. You can begin playing right away. Immediately your focus shifts to mastering the intricacies of the game, and away from trying to know how it works. That's part of what makes it so good--15 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master.

Civ3, on the other hand, has so many different facets to be learned. Many of you have said that's it's less complex than Civ2, but I don't have a strong history with Civ2 either.

What I'm really getting at is this: is it even possible to learn to love a game like Civ3 on the limited amount of time that I have to give to it? Or will it take so long to fully comprehend everything that by the time I get there I'll be too old to appreciate it? Should I just forget about it until I'm able to give more time to it?

What do you think? Thanks for your input.

[Nubclear]

Hmm....How much time have/do you spend with alpha centauri and civ2?

[Carver]

My perscription to help you appreciate Civ3 more: go over some of the strategy threads in the strat forum, study up on city placement, optimization of golden ages, optimization of the forrbidden palace, REX, tile usages, diplomacy, and military "rush" strats, civ characteristics, then put in a few marathon 7-15 hour sessions (like I'm planning tonight ) and you'll learn to apply the strats more and more. If 7-15 hours just isn't in the cards keep on doing what you're doing and you'll get there before you know it.

[Theseus]

rwprice, I don;t know if this works for you, but I'd suggest using limited time to focus on the early game... say, up until Riflemen. Given your experience, I'd play at Monarch mostly, until you felt comfortable that you could gain 'momentum' by the Modern Age.

There's a LOT to learn just in that early stretch... master it, and I think you will: 1) find Emperor a good and fun challenge, and 2) addressing 'one more turn,' you'll find that the game is more engaging when you have a fuller picture of the dynamics driven by each of your own decisions, as well as a better picture of what will happen later in the game, and a desire to see if you are right.

I play Go... although the rules are simple, it took me six months to see the outlines of artistry, and, five years into it, I still feel a child.

Civ3, that subject of rants and almost religious disagreement, can either be a click-fest or the most engaging, multi-disciplinary game (or occupation) you've ever experienced.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by rwprice Here's my problem. I love the idea of these games, but I can't seem to get to the point where I experience that "one more turn" feeling.

I don't know what to say. I had that "one more turn" feeling from the very beginning, although I knew nothing about the game when I started to play (it was 9 or 10 years ago and I haven't had a manual, there was no Internet, etc). But I was always interested in history and science, also I was always excited about building things, researching and so on, so all the basic ingredients were prepared for the "game of my life"

What I'm really getting at is this: is it even possible to learn to love a game like Civ3 on the limited amount of time that I have to give to it?

To love it, yes; to master it, definitely no!
Try it first on the easiest level; as far as I can remember the game gives you hints on what to do on that level.

What do you think? Thanks for your input.

I know one thing for sure: it is worth trying. In the worst case you lose a few hours but in the best case you lose a lot-a lot-a lot of hours !

Good luck and good civin' !

[vmxa1]

I get the one more turn when I am starting to make contact or in war. When I come close to researching a cool new tech that say gives me a new unit or building. I can't wait to get that Knight. I want to see the next turn to see if my tactics for cutting off their attack is going to work and many more of the same. If you have been in these spots and it did not gab you, then I can't see how it will ever do so.

[sboog]

Hello, rwprice! Nice to hear from you again.

You and I have been talking about Civ3 (and 2) and our wanting to have that "just one more turn" excitement.

Several things have helped me. I still don't win and I still can not play a 12 hour game.

But I have found the fun in setting up the game all sorts of ways: higher levels, different maps, warm temp, 5000 year old planet - you know all the variations. I often play random for the whole set up. I love the beginning of the game with a new map to explore.

Another thing, I choose a civ and concentrate on learning about playing with it - like Persia, scientific and industrious, or Egypt, Industrious and Religious.

I am playing, seeing how long it takes me to get to the Middle Ages. Or how soon I can find iron and begin building certain things.

Or I play as long as I can and compare my scores.

I am reading good strat things here, like Theseus' thread: "Winning early: what do you do?"

One thing you can do,too. You can go over to CivFanatics (gasp!) and join a Training Day game (succession game.) Five people take turns playing the game - 1 person plays 10 turns then passes the saved game to the next after the mentor comments or critiques what you did. It will hold your interest! Give that a try. (It's in the Story and Something or other forum listed a few forums down from the General Discussion.)

I think your playing only 2 hours a week and coming back in a week and pulling out the old game is not much fun for you. When I have done that I pull up the old game with no enthusiasm and try to remember what it was all about. It feels stale to me, and I'd rather start another one and have a go at it.

There are many ways to enjoy Civ3. Some people play all day and night until they win (or lose) and some of us just take it in little doses and have fun and learning a bit more each time.

There are so many things about Civ3 to learn. But for me there is no way I am going to learn all of them. The basic goal of the game guides me - and then I just do the best I can with a spirit of adventure and trying to be happy with short term achievements. And maybe someday I'll win!

Hope this is helpful.

sboog (p.s. What really got my hooked on Civ was when I got Civ1 last October. Do you have that?)

[Arrian]

Theseus' advice is good: play until the industrial age and start again. Strategic implications aside, the beginning is almost always more engaging than the end (true of Civ1 and CivII as well).

I do think there is something to your theory - that you may not have enough spare time to play the game and really get into it.

-Arrian

[Solver]

I might add that I usually keep myself from playing at all if I know I don't have the sufficient time. Generally, I'd better do the job then, and play if I'm sure I'll get quite some for it, like several hours a day. Yes, there are then periods when I don't play at all.

Probably you're right, it's not getting into the game really... I suppose so. To really get the taste of the game you need to play more of it... though it depends on how much did you play the previous civ games.

[planetfall]

Never give up. Never surrender.


Never give up. Never surrender.

Never give up. Never surrender.

{kudos to Galaxy Quest for an easy to remember mantra when playing civ3}.



First off you need to understand Firaxis did not make this game for normal people. They designed the game to be a time sucking amusement. It took me way to long to get up to speed on this game. I just started last Dec, and have been playing weekly, but it is a real drag for the first 3-6 months. Here are techniques to learn the dynamics of the game.

1. Play the same game several times.

2. Save your game at key points so you can play short games. You can either do this at standard years:

• 4000bc {so you can get a fresh start}
  
• re 1000 bc {bypass the slow opening}
  
• re 10ad {middle game in ancient era}
  
• 1000 ad
  

Or by development, ie. the game ends at the end of the ancient era, industrial era, etc.

3. limit number of civs: 2-4 is a good range when starting,

4. Use the Editor, under the game directory, to change things you don't like to make it easier at first. You can always reset later. For example you might want to set corruption to 60% until you get a handle on the game.

5. Think of game experience as a 2 move play chess by mail game. Limit your time to 20/15/10/5 turns. Turns are not shown in the game and years are only a rough guide. The later the year the less turns you should plan on playing as there are more pieces to move. This is just the reverse of chess, where you lose pieces during the game. In civ you are
always gaining more pieces.

6. A win is when you play one of the game segments better than last time. For example
recently I was next to the Iroquios and this time they were not friendly. Opps, I was not prepared for that. I replayed years 2000bc to 500bc 3 times before I found a tactic that worked.

7. Score? how do you know when you win? Not by "score", base on Power chart and ranking for GNP. Nothing else really matters. Power ranking and GNP ranking tell you how effective your "queen is", i.e. if it is able to use its full ability or is pinned by other pieces.

8. Ask questions of the forum. Even if you ask the same question 10 times until you learn, keep on.

9. Look up the thread on opening. Much like chess the game is won/lost in how you play the ancient era.

10. Advisors are just that, advisors, very low level kabitzers. Worth almost nothing, for example, science guy never has enough. You can have all the culture you need, and still get bad advice. The game is about learning how to balance the different pickup sticks. Maybe PTW will be better, but for now civ3 is decent.

11. Watch out for automating workers, over time this a) is like automating pawn moves, and b) increased boredom with game.

12. Oh, at first increase resource frequency in the editor, at the very least: horse, iron, coal, oil. I would suggest upping the numbers by 1/4 to 1/2. Firaxis wanted conflict. You want to learn what the resouces can do. Without them you don't learn any more than you can learn the sicilian defense if you never play it.

Hope this helps,

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by rwprice
I "discovered" Civ about a year and a half ago and immediately recognized the possibilities for this type of game. I thought perhaps that this genre would be the one to keep me occupied for the forseeable future. I started with Civ2: Test of Time, followed up quickly by the Multiplayer Gold Edition, Alpha Centauri, Call to Power, and then Civ3. Since Civ3 came out, that's where I've spent most of my time.

I went from CIV SNES to Civ3. No other civ game.

Originally posted by rwprice
Here's my problem. I love the idea of these games, but I can't seem to get to the point where I experience that "one more turn" feeling. I've written about this before, but it was back at the beginning of my journey. Now, I have a different theory, and I'm hoping you can help me validate it.

I get the same feeling from SW Rebellion. I can't stop.

Originally posted by rwprice
Although I spend most of my gaming time on Civ3, and have even kept up with all the patches, the amount of that time is very limited. I rarely get to spend more than 2-3 hours per week playing. Is that even enough time to figure out the complexities of this game? I find that I don't really start to enjoy a game until after I'm past the learning curve and able to concentrate on mastering the strategies of the game. I still feel like I'm trying to figure out what everything does and how it works, let alone working on mastering strategies.

Civ3 doesn't take that long to learn IMHO.

Originally posted by rwprice
The best analogy for me is always chess. In chess (which is a far less complex game than Civ, yet deeper), one can learn the basic movements of the pieces in 15 minutes. You can begin playing right away. Immediately your focus shifts to mastering the intricacies of the game, and away from trying to know how it works. That's part of what makes it so good--15 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master.

DeepO!!! I'm not the only one that compares Civ to chess!!! I win I win I win!

Originally posted by rwprice
Civ3, on the other hand, has so many different facets to be learned. Many of you have said that's it's less complex than Civ2, but I don't have a strong history with Civ2 either.

I don't think there are that many facets. You don't need to bother with spys that much, culture just gives you boarders. Bombardment is that very good anyway and not worth it to build units like that IMHO.

Originally posted by rwprice
What I'm really getting at is this: is it even possible to learn to love a game like Civ3 on the limited amount of time that I have to give to it? Or will it take so long to fully comprehend everything that by the time I get there I'll be too old to appreciate it? Should I just forget about it until I'm able to give more time to it?

That is totaly up to you. You shouldn't ask us because you are going to hear people (and we ALLLLL know who they are ) who say that Civ3 is the spawn of satan, and others who dropped Civ2 all together.

[sboog]

Planetfall, your post was so helpful to me!

I hope it will be to rwprice, too.

There are many ways of playing and loving this game, aren't they?

sboog

[planetfall]

Originally posted by sboog
Planetfall, your post was so helpful to me!

sboog

Glad you liked it. I struggled with the mechanics of game play for too many months before came to grasp how to play the game and still keep it fun.

I think Firaxis goofed by not realizing how difficult it is to learn the game even at warlord. But then my first year of chess was lose, lose, lose. The difference was restarting a game of chess in 40 minutes. There is no such thing as a 4 hr Civ3 game. Big design flaw, should have designed game not just with different levels but different expected play times as well. Hopefully PTW will solve some of the problems.

Later.

--PF

[The Pioneer]

I usually play a few hours a week on the avg. which means that some weeks I am all evening and some not at all. I get the one more turn feeling with all of Sid's games (how many times did my girlfriend wait for me in bed in college while I had that feeling I honestly cannot count ). Now years past college, I do not have the luxury of time as I previoulsy did and thus I limit myself to a few hours a week. I strongly believe that you can play and learn the many facetes of the game within that time frame and you can go on playing Civ 3, like 1 & 2, for years to come.

Although I must add due to my generous emplyer I do get the time to browse on Apolyton each day!

So long...

[Solver]

Planetfall - boo! The ability to play long games is one thing I love about Civ - I like if if my games take 20 and more hours. It's so complex and hard to learn... if it was short, they'd had to remove some complexity.

[rwprice]

sboog, good to hear from you again! Yes, it feels like we've been on a journey together. The comments that you and the others have made here have been most helpful. You've given me some great ideas on new ways to look at the game and hopefully breathe new life into my playing time. I think the bottom line is that I really need to be able to set aside some solid time to play, instead of trying to break it up into the little pieces I can fit in here and there. You're right--coming back to a game after a few days have gone by is difficult to do. It takes a while to even remember what I was trying to do. Thanks for the suggestion about the succession games over at CivFanatics--I may give that a try.

I'm convinced that once I can get to the point where I think more about what I want to do and less about how to do it, I will enjoy the game a lot more. Planetfall, thanks for your suggestions--I'm going to save them and keep them handy. Thanks everyone, for some great advice!

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Solver
Planetfall - boo! The ability to play long games is one thing I love about Civ - I like if if my games take 20 and more hours. It's so complex and hard to learn... if it was short, they'd had to remove some complexity.

No you are missing the point. My point is there should be a way to play the game for both type of users: A) those who want to play 3-5 hrs a week and finish a game, and B) those who want to play a long game.

Personally, unless I am testing 10-20 year turn tactics, I am only interested in the long game. I got hooked by the "just one more turn and I can gain advantage" bait. However, even though I would not dream of giving up on the long game, I can understand the problem of people who don't want to commit a lot of time each week because of other priorities in their life. Given the high of winning a long game, if there is a choice between a long and short game design, then the long game wins hands down. But this is civ3, surely by this time there should have been flexibility in game design to allow for a lightning civ3 game. There is lightning chess and regular chess and mail chess. The three games have the same rules but the player experience is totally different because of the differences in latency and total time to finish a game.
I can't see mail civ3 ever being of interest.
But there is a group of users who would appreciate lightning civ3, or scenario civ3.

I never played civ2, but I thought scenario games were a part of civ2 and some scenario game play was going to come out with PTW.

My 3 cents.

--PF

[Solver]

I think you're mistaken in some points. There is a future for email civ 3, in every meaning of it - games that take several months to complete still are popular.

As far as short, lightning chess, games go, I can't really see how it can be done. It would need fundamental changes... like making it possible to win not by conquest in the beginning of the Industrial Age. Game length comes from the count of units, so things like Double Production don't help - they actually lead to more units and hence even more time spent playing a game.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by planetfall


No you are missing the point. My point is there should be a way to play the game for both type of users: A) those who want to play 3-5 hrs a week and finish a game, and B) those who want to play a long game.

Can't wait to end a came? Here what you do.

1: Tiny Map
2: No Respawn Players
3: Accelerated Production
4: Cheiftan Level

Just my 4 cents.

[planetfall]

Ok Solver, it would be tough to program a short civ3 game. Many the interest would not be worth the programming effort. If I were doing it, it would be something like this:

1. starting position: user
A. User sets: world types, difficulty levels, win conditions, civs playing, etc like when start a new game
B. User sets either starting year or
ERA.
C. User sets max number of turns
10|15|20|25
D. Previous civ history {all scales == 100%}
1) max science rate
2) max expansion rate
3) max military rate
4) max productability rate

2. starting position: based on user preferences computer generates a scenario
telling user:
A. civ playing
B. victory conditions
C. current civ development based user's slider preferences.


With this there could be a short Game of the Month where a scenario is posted and then different players could who could win according to victory condition such as
A. most land area increase {conquest}
B. highest culture increase {culture}
C. highest production increase {productivity}

Ok, this would be tough to program as civ3 has not been around long enough for standard offenses and defenses. There is no 3 knight game. There is no queen gambit. Closest things we have so far are: ICS, early warfare rush, peaceful baiting AI vs AI, rotating short wars vs different AI's.

You convinced me I can't think of how it could be done in a reasonable manner. Best case would be some tutorial type scenarios and that would defeat the fun of learning how to play better and better.

Back to short games: solitare, freecell.

--PF

[Thrawn05]

Planetfall, could you name a TBS, RTS comptuer game that's short? I would like know.


Freecell a SHORT game? Come on it takes me a couple of hours just to consider a move.

[rwprice]

I agree that it would be pretty tough to program a short Civ3 game, but I think Planetfall has a point in saying that it would be good to somehow cater to those of us who can't invest the kind of time necessary to really experience the game.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that this is a deficiency of Civ3 in any way. Games are designed in a particular way and that's the way they're best experienced. One reason there's been so much frustration by some people playing Civ3 is that they want the game to be something that it's not. I recognize that any game needs to be approached on its own merits, not on what we want it to be.

Having said that, scenarios would perhaps be the way to experience a "lightning" version of the game. To do this, the user would come into an already existing situation and play for the completion of a particular objective. Of course, this would in some ways make it a different game, but it was popular with Civ2 (maybe I should dust off Civ2 and explore some of those scenarios).

Civ3 is a wonderful game that I hope to fully experience one day. In the meanwhile, I'm looking for ways to enjoy it in the little time I have available.

[Solver]

Planetfall, nice to see I showed you my point . If such a thing was done, it would just plain be a different game. Civ is, by definition, a long game - changing it would be one the most radical changes - well make Civ RTS .

The only exception is that if I now fire up Civ 1 and can conquer the world in an hour .

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Planetfall, could you name a TBS, RTS comptuer game that's short? I would like know.


Freecell a SHORT game? Come on it takes me a couple of hours just to consider a move.

You are working too hard on Freecell. I run about 80% success and play 2-3 games/hr.

How about:
Risk [1-3 hrs]
Axis & Allies [3-4 hrs]
Chess at low difficulty levels [30min-1hr]
MsHearts [30 min]


Hearts and Freecell can pass time while waiting for url's to load.

Granted have not played longer short games like Risk or A&A this year as they are not as interesting as playing a sequence in civ3. But other games are useful when looking for a short break between tasks.

-- PF

[Solver]

My favorite game, not counting civ, is Age of Empires. AoE 2 gives you games of 40-60 minutes typically, anything over two hours is a long game.

[WarpStorm]

My new favorite, not counting Civ, Moonbase Commander (don't laugh, it's good), can usually be played in half an hour.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Solver
My favorite game, not counting civ, is Age of Empires. AoE 2 gives you games of 40-60 minutes typically, anything over two hours is a long game.

Hey, thanks for the heads up. I assumed AOE was a long game. I was looking for another inbetween game for those times when I have some time but not enough to get into a civ3 sessiono.

[Solver]

Nope, AOE isn't long. Generally, the next upcoming title of the series, Age of Mythology, does even have games of 30 minutes, in 1v1.

[Juggler]

AoE 2 gives you games of 40-60 minutes typically, anything over two hours is a long game.

that just remindes me what a crappy AoE2 player I am. I managed to finish 4 campaigns in the Joan of Arc scenario but then it all stopped (enemy agression intensified).
Yet I finished the game in a record time (with the help of cheats of course).

[Solver]

LOL Juggler. Well campaigns are different... some scenarios there require you to spend a few hours.