How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

[Pyrodrew]

Civ3 is a great game. I've read the v1.29 readme, but I also know Firaxis does not list all their changes sometimes. I am coming back to Civ3 & was wondering if v1.29 addressed any of these prior issues/problems with 1.17 (maybe was 1.19?)...

1.Navy was often irrelevant & V-E-R-Y S--L--O--W;
2.Some air units were useless (helicopter, paratroopers, etc.);
3.HUGE HUGE advantages to war (to many to list) unlike peace;
4.Once you became the largest/strongest civilization you could cavalry/tank steamroll over all others while increasing your power at the same time. I could even do this as a Democracy;
5.The AI Civs did not care to try to win the game, they were only interested in good trade deals...
example: Babylons would let me finish my Spaceship in peace (letting me win) if I met their demand for free Ivory!!! No Civ would ever try to stop me from winning when the end was near.
6.ANY Civ. starting in the Jungle automatically meant they were doomed. Civilizations in the Grasslands were often destined to be the future powerhouses.
7.NO BANANAS!!!!!!
8.The AI would spend precious time/money researching/buying useless techs (often dead-end techs) it did not need.

Please respond... any recommendations welcome... thank you.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
1.Navy was often irrelevant & V-E-R-Y S--L--O--W;
2.Some air units were useless (helicopter, paratroopers, etc.);
3.HUGE HUGE advantages to war (to many to list) unlike peace;
4.Once you became the largest/strongest civilization you could cavalry/tank steamroll over all others while increasing your power at the same time. I could even do this as a Democracy;

No changes with respect to these, AFAIK.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
5.The AI Civs did not care to try to win the game, they were only interested in good trade deals...
example: Babylons would let me finish my Spaceship in peace (letting me win) if I met their demand for free Ivory!!! No Civ would ever try to stop me from winning when the end was near.

I am not quite sure if this is correct, I have had some pretty thin & hard-earned victories here. Anyway, no changes either.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
6.ANY Civ. starting in the Jungle automatically meant they were doomed. Civilizations in the Grasslands were often destined to be the future powerhouses.
7.NO BANANAS!!!!!!

No changes. Actually, how would you like to fix the jungle problem? Still no bananas, oh, well...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
8.The AI would spend precious time/money researching/buying useless techs (often dead-end techs) it did not need.

I can't agree with this... dunno if it is because of the patch or what, but I hardly ever notice AIs wasting resources on useless techs. Also, it is rather difficult to say which techs are really useless... I sometimes go for Printing Press only because noone else does... and then trade it around to catch up... I don't think it's because of the patch, but I would say that the AIs research and trade quite fine.

[Pyrodrew]

Actually, how would you like to fix the jungle problem?

In Civ2, Jungles were no paradise to start in, but in Civ3 Jungles are suicide since they removed Bananas (growth) & replaced it with Disease (population loss). They should remove Disease & put Bananas back, like Civ2... or at least make the Jungle Civs develop an immunity to Disease over time. Since Jungles are typically near the center of the map they often become the areas other Civs plan to grow (especially due to Distance Corruption). When a Jungle Civ is discovered it often is only a matter of time until other Civs divide up the pie & devour it. Jungle Civs need something more to give them a fair shot.

hardly ever notice AIs wasting resources on useless techs.

That sounds good! Before the AI would be willing to pay a king's bounty for a dead-end tech that already had it's greatwonder produced. Another example is a Civ that has been a warmonger forever, why spend time researching (or paying tons of $ for) a tech to get democracy when it could be advancing further in weapon technology. Nevertheless, it sounds like this has been solved/improved... so I'm excited.

[Tassadar500]

IMO what you listed arent bugs there just a thing in CivIII. So if you change those you change the game.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
1.Navy was often irrelevant & V-E-R-Y S--L--O--W;
2.Some air units were useless (helicopter, paratroopers, etc.);

You can mod both of these in the editor to make them better. If you don't like modding yourself, there are plenty of good ones out there.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
3.HUGE HUGE advantages to war (to many to list) unlike peace;

This is a difficult balance to achieve. My personal preference is making war slightly stronger because it makes the game more interesting. That said, when you're ahead you can definitely play a peaceful game to great success (though you might have to go to war to get there).

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
4.Once you became the largest/strongest civilization you could cavalry/tank steamroll over all others while increasing your power at the same time. I could even do this as a Democracy;

In any game, if you're clearly ahead, then you're going to steamroll over the opponents (one kind of implies the other, no?). It is true that, in the end, very boring tactics will win games (i.e. mass-produce Cavalry), but getting to the point where you can freely employ those tactics is the real difficulty.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
5.The AI Civs did not care to try to win the game, they were only interested in good trade deals...
example: Babylons would let me finish my Spaceship in peace (letting me win) if I met their demand for free Ivory!!! No Civ would ever try to stop me from winning when the end was near.

Again, had the AI been coded the other way, a large subset of players would have complained: "why doesn't the AI try to win rather than prevent me from winning?". Admittedly some decisions the AI makes with respect to the end-game are clearly "stupid", but then again, if they're powerful enough their stupid decisions won't matter so much. The AI was designed to be powerful, not focused. Most human players are the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
6.ANY Civ. starting in the Jungle automatically meant they were doomed. Civilizations in the Grasslands were often destined to be the future powerhouses.

Yeah, this is annoying, but what do you expect? I can see no solution to this problem other than putting all the jungle tiles on islands far away from the civs. Or I suppose you could just eliminate Jungles entirely.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
7.NO BANANAS!!!!!!

Bah, I don't like bananas, and can't imagine a fledgeling economy blossomming because of the things. But that's just me...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
8.The AI would spend precious time/money researching/buying useless techs (often dead-end techs) it did not need.

I agree with you here. You also have to take into account, however, that the techs are considered useless by human players need still be researched by the AI for gameplay purposes. If the human player or the AI never researched Advanced Flight, why put it into the game? The trick is to make every tech useful, not teach the AI which ones are optimal.


In general, the point of my comments is that the problems you have with the game are not clearly problems with the game itself. The AI does have its quirks, but I think I've showed that altering it isn't a simple matter of writing a patch. Some of the "problems" may never change because they're not technically "problems".


Dominae

[Pyrodrew]

what you listed arent bugs there just a thing in CivIII. So if you change those you change the game.

Err... that's why I didn't call them bugs.
And if those things were changed they change the game for the better, IMO.

[Alex]

You're out of luck, I fear.

[Pyrodrew]

You can mod both of these in the editor to make them better. If you don't like modding yourself, there are plenty of good ones out there.

Ok... I was just curious if Firaxis did anything to this (they did speed up the privateer).

My personal preference is making war slightly stronger

I like war too... I just wish peace had better temptations for me.

In any game, if you're clearly ahead, then you're going to steamroll over the opponents (one kind of implies the other, no?).

Not necessarily. I was always hoping for a balance of power...

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

"had the AI been coded the other way, a large subset of players would have complained: "why doesn't the AI try to win rather than prevent me from winning?"

If Civ A is 10 days from launching a spaceship & other Civs do not have any spaceship technology, then stopping Civ A is those Civs trying to win. A simple if x < 10 would do, no?

Bah, I don't like bananas

Blasphemy!

Some of the "problems" may never change because they're not technically "problems".

Most of what I listed were common issues brought up elsewhere & earlier often brought up in threads last time I visited. I used issues/problems since I knew some may feel some items were not problems.

[vmxa1]

Not sure what is meant by #5, but I have had the AI launch wars at me with less than 5 turns to go and they had only one city. So does that mean that do not want me to win or is it just a fluke?

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

Not necessarily. I was always hoping for a balance of power...

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

This is a myth and not at all realistic. Look at the real world. The third world nations are not banding together to take out the powerhouse countries. They are engaged in petty border disputes amongst themselves. In your words, futile. But that's real life and not a game.

[Cyclotron]

I like how jungles are terrible starting positions. It makes starting a challenge sometimes. Besides, not all places that civs start should be perfect... triumph over adversity, anyone?

[Pyrodrew]

This is a myth and not at all realistic. Look at the real world. The third world nations are not banding together to take out the powerhouse countries. They are engaged in petty border disputes amongst themselves. In your words, futile. But that's real life and not a game.

Ironic, considering your application of the real world to this game is an unrealistic myth. The real world does NOT END with God deciding the victor once someone launches a Spaceship or controls x% of land. This allows countries to fight over petty disputes as there is no defined end. If there was an end game victory condition in real life, things would play out VERY different! In the real world there is NO clear preassigned time the world ends... in Civ3 there is!

I like how jungles are terrible starting positions. It makes starting a challenge sometimes. Besides, not all places that civs start should be perfect... triumph over adversity, anyone?

Civ2 Jungles were a challenge, not Civ3. Some terrible start positions are fine, but when 99% of all Jungle start positions decide the AI civilization's destiny as failure then it's no longer about good triumph, but fate. I guess they could have made Jungles even worse & Grasslands even better... that way the entire game would be decided on where you start. Why make start positions less balanced if you do not have to?

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
If there was an end game victory condition in real life, things would play out VERY different! In the real world there is NO END TIME the game ends...

Go on believing that while I win the game

[Pyrodrew]

Go on believing that while I win the game

So in your mind, what time in real life will the entire world end & a civilization be declared a victor? It's around modern age now, so it must be soon...

Hint: I was not talk about *your* Civ3 game there, I was talking about the 'game of real life'.

[Chronus]

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

I have to agree with warpstorm to a certain degree. If I'm civ D, and my only two neighbors were A and E, then I wouldn't want to risk a fight with A. I would much rather absorb E and, consequently, have more resources and cities to control for the big finally later on.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


Not necessarily. I was always hoping for a balance of power...

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

If Civ A is 10 days from launching a spaceship & other Civs do not have any spaceship technology, then stopping Civ A is those Civs trying to win. A simple if x < 10 would do, no?

If I were Civ D, I would fight C or E, absorb them, yake B or F, then I have the power to fight Civ A.

[Pyrodrew]

If I'm civ D, and my only two neighbors were A and E, then I wouldn't want to risk a fight with A. I would much rather absorb E and, consequently, have more resources and cities to control for the big finally later on.

If I were Civ D, I would fight C or E, absorb them, yake B or F, then I have the power to fight Civ A.

That's a bit over confident. What *exactly* do you think Civ A is doing while you (Civ D) are fighting Civ E? Even IF you defeat Civ E the time it takes you to do so will be equal or longer than it takes for Civ A to defeat any of the other Civs. And Civ A will more likely be successful given it's far greater power.

Stage 2:

Civ A is attacking Civ F (Civ A>Civ F & more likely to win)
Civ B is attacking Civ C (Civ B>Civ C & probably will win)
Civ D is attacking Civ E (Civ D = Civ E)

Guess what the outcome will be?

This is often the mistake I see the AI Civs do... they fight their petty wars among themselves while letting Civ A continues to grow. Heck, both of you replied with the same comment (one of you could be Civ D & the other Civ E)... but truth is only 1 of you would win.

I wouldn't want to risk a fight with A

If you are a neighbor with Civ A as you suggest, then Distance Corruption makes you a *prime target* for Civ A to continue his growth... only difference is Civ A now gets the advantage of surprise by you leaving him alone.

[Pyrodrew]

I would much rather absorb E and, consequently, have more resources and cities to control for the big finally later on.

Keep in mind this is in the late Industrial Age or Modern Age... time is running out & the big finale will be decided soon.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Civ2 Jungles were a challenge, not Civ3.

No way. Civ2 jungles held me up like a wall made of rice paper. Add fruit to that, and they were almost good to have around. With enough settlers, in Civ2 I;d rather have jungles than grassland.

Some terrible start positions are fine, but when 99% of all Jungle start positions decide the AI civilization's destiny as failure then it's no longer about good triumph, but fate.

I want a certain part of the game to be about fate... it's called environmental determinism. Even so, I like the bad starts because when I get them it forces me to play at my best to win.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Tuberski


If I were Civ D, I would fight C or E, absorb them, yake B or F, then I have the power to fight Civ A.

Remember, civ A IS a human player, it won't let "you" (the comp) build your cities and let you grow to be a threat. Yes, if you'd be civ D and all of them would be comps even A, then, you could win by absorbing all the small ones and building yourself big enough to strike A, because AI will let you survive and grow if you kiss its ass.

[tinyp3nis]

Yes, jungles are major pain in the butt in civ 3. Takes for ever to cut them down, and before you do they are good for nothing I can't remember exactly how they were in civ 2, but couldn't have been as bad as civ 3. The difference between grasslands and jungles is very unbalanced, oh well good think civ 3 is SP only.

[Pyrodrew]

Civ2 jungles held me up like a wall made of rice paper. Add fruit to that, and they were almost good to have around. With enough settlers, in Civ2 I;d rather have jungles than grassland.

Exactly, especially when the jungle terrain was laid out nice! Now remove your bananas & poison your jungle suddenly you do not have a fair adequate start position.

I want a certain part of the game to be about fate... it's called environmental determinism. Even so, I like the bad starts because when I get them it forces me to play at my best to win.

Exactly, as mentioned some terrible start positions are fine. Yet Civ3 Jungles went to an unnecessary extreme making starting terrain play an even larger role in a Civ's success. In Civ2 starting in a Jungle *might* be good... in Civ3 it is always bad (thus less variety in acceptable starting positions).

[vondrack]

Reading the discussion about civs A, B, C, D, and E, I am rather surprised than nobody objected the initial premise. Out of my experience, the current leader often is the target of multiciv coalitions. I can't even remember how many players complained of being ganged upon ("human vs. rest of the world" problem), while in fact it was just a case of the rest of the world ganging upon the current leader.

It is rather cheap to think up an A-B-C-D-E situation and demonstrate how pitiful for D is to fight E instead of teaming with B-C-E and jumping on A. Very often, the geographic distribution of the empires simply does not allow anything like that. You can quite successfully wage war with your neighbour, but you are severely limited in fighting a civ halway around the globe. I am deliberately not drawing examples from the real world, because they are not appropriate here. Real world logic should not be applied to the game, as the game has its own rules and implied logic. For example: acquiring new cities far away from the productive core means wasting efforts... while taking some from your neighbour actually adds to your economic strength. Going to war with the most powerful civ would be the destructive way of playing the game. If I can't win, let he/she can't either. As I understand it, the AIs are currently programmed to play constructively, they try to win the game, not just stop others from winning it - which is the right thing, IMHO.

Besides, as others correctly pointed out, blind ganging would be pretty unrealistic and in most cases, suicidal. Organizing a broad effective coalition against the most powerful civ in the game takes a lot more than what AI can currently offer. It takes a human... you will have to wait for MP!

Regarding the unopposed spaceship launch... keep in mind that you need a spy to know how far has the SS construction progressed... No spy, no intelligence, no opposition...

[HazieDaVampire]

ok, let me just get a picture here, they actualy had somthing in civ2 called Bananas?
So is that where we get the abstain/banana thing?

[tinyp3nis]

Reading the discussion about civs A, B, C, D, and E, I am rather surprised than nobody objected the initial premise. Out of my experience, the current leader often is the target of multiciv coalitions. I can't even remember how many players complained of being ganged upon ("human vs. rest of the world" problem), while in fact it was just a case of the rest of the world ganging upon the current leader.

If you are big, they like you less but Pyrodrew was quite right about it being ineffective, they do not posses a real threat, you can ass kiss your way out of lot of things. Even make them fight eachother if you want, and many times they will without your help. If they DO gang on a human, it's just coincidence or one needs to be more of a "brown noser". Would the ganging (_on the human when he is big_) be good thing, is for you people to think about but it does not exist civ 3 yet.

It is rather cheap to think up an A-B-C-D-E situation and demonstrate how pitiful for D is to fight E instead of teaming with B-C-E and jumping on A. Very often, the geographic distribution of the empires simply does not allow anything like that.

I for one think this comparison was pretty much how it is in the game, accurate and has the point in it. The fact that sometimes there are situations where AI is not in a place where it could provide to a war does NOT mean the AI is aware of that, it is not. In my games my neighbours don't gang on me anymore than the civs around the globe. If I'm at war with a civ next to me it's a pity the AI don't have more sense choosing it's allies vs me.

[WarpStorm]

The strange thing is this balance of power was purposefully removed. Too many people complained that the AI always ganged on the leader in their previous games (I used to like hide out as number 2 in SMAC till it was too late for them to do anything about my eventual win), so they made Civ3 not act that way. I guess you can't please everyone.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
ok, let me just get a picture here, they actualy had somthing in civ2 called Bananas?
So is that where we get the abstain/banana thing?

I am not sure what they are refering to, but civ2 has a tile that can have bananas on it.
They may be making a reference to banana republics.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The strange thing is this balance of power was purposefully removed. Too many people complained that the AI always ganged on the leader in their previous games (I used to like hide out as number 2 in SMAC till it was too late for them to do anything about my eventual win), so they made Civ3 not act that way. I guess you can't please everyone.

Civ 3 gangbangs could be pretty ugly, considering the fact that in civ 3 comps use their troops much better than in civ2 / smac.

[Chronus]

Keep in mind this is in the late Industrial Age or Modern Age... time is running out & the big finale will be decided soon.

Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking that late in the game . . . though depending on circumstances, I may still hold to what I said earlier.

I also didn't realize we were talking about human players (as in multiplayer). But again, I suspect the issue may come down to confidence and control. To have the cities of Civ D and Civ E under one player (who's also a good player) is more threatening than the two civs being ruled by seperate players.

Consequently, I'm curious as to how many human players would rather absorb the smaller civ instead of an outright multi-civ attack on the big civ simply because they feel they can handle the resources better than that other "dumb" human player.

Very often, the geographic distribution of the empires simply does not allow anything like that. You can quite successfully wage war with your neighbour, but you are severely limited in fighting a civ halway around the globe.

Agreed.

Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Chronus


Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking that late in the game . . . though depending on circumstances, I may still hold to what I said earlier.

I also didn't realize we were talking about human players (as in multiplayer). But again, I suspect the issue may come down to confidence and control. To have the cities of Civ D and Civ E under one player (who's also a good player) is more threatening than the two civs being ruled by seperate players.

Consequently, I'm curious as to how many human players would rather absorb the smaller civ instead of an outright multi-civ attack on the big civ simply because they feel they can handle the resources better than that other "dumb" human player.



Agreed.

Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!

Nono, actually this is still about Single player.