civ 3 is not a fair and good game - Page 3

Cruddy · May 18, 2003, 21:42

OK Jo buck - this is my last attempt to persuade you;

Perhaps you think the difficulty levels are maybe 20% different in terms of difficulty.

It is more like a scale - Regent is TWICE as difficult as Chieftain, Prince is TWICE as difficult as Regent, and Monarch is TWICE as difficult as Prince.

You are playing a game that is 8 times more difficult for beginners than the designers intended.

Is it any wonder you are having problems? You can always come back to Monarch when you can beat the AI senseless - first learn how it's done.

bobbo008 · May 18, 2003, 22:25

"yek yek yek is supposed to represent the cries of some unfair animal you may found in the fabulous and beautiful swiss mountain."

in what part of switzerland would we find this mountain?

Louis XXIV · May 18, 2003, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by jobuck
4 or 5 only ???

I have play around 40 games till now without any victory. I'm playing at the monarch level, a mistake for a beginner, but I won't abandon this level.
I start with, and I want a victory first !

NOTE:
The day I will win, I will only accept from my ennemies that they can manage 1 city, no more.
yek yek yek

Monarch!!!

At least play at Regent

In Monarch, the AI does things faster than you could do (In Diety it is worse)

I don't even play at that level.

BTW, Which Civ are you playing?

If you have Civ specific abilities on (which most people do, because it adds flavor to each civ) you can have a Civ that will help you in the game.

Arrian · May 19, 2003, 12:27

Starting off on Monarch?!?! No wonder you're frustrated!

I started off on Chieftain. That was easy, and I moved up to Warlord. Still easy. Moved up to Regent... and promptly started getting my ass kicked. Figured it out, moved up to Monarch, and got another round of asswhooping. Figured that out, moved up to Emperor, was doing ok, and then PTW came out, and it's definitely a bit harder. Dropped back to Monarch, where I have the most fun.

I think the game has gotten harder since the original release, btw.

Most of the relevent things have already been said, so I'm not going to type up a huge post.

-Civ is complicated.
-Civ is hard.
-CivIII is quite different from CivII, as I found out once I moved up to Regent level (on Chieftain & Warlord, my old CivII style worked fine, but once the AI got a fighting chance it started kicking me around).
-Combat in CivIII depends on many factors, and also has a fairly high degree of randomness. This irritates many gamers. Some learn to accept it & deal with it, some can't accept it and toss the game. Up to you, but don't make the decision until you understand how it works.

-Arrian

p.s. Oh, yeah and -Civ is fun!

Capt Dizle · May 19, 2003, 13:23

The biggest problem with the combat system is that some folks don't take the time to understand how it works. They fail to understand the defensive bonus system and do not properly calculate the odds. Then they get defensive.

Firaxis should have included a "show odds" screen as they did with SMAC.

Still, of all the things I have complained about concerning Civ3, combat has never been a problem for me.

Funny statement in here....."Civ3 certified"..sounds one click from the nut house.

jobuck · May 19, 2003, 17:29

jimmytrick

your approach is different, but there is no problem.
The way how the health points are distributed is not a funny behavior of this game for me.
Because it make you focusing on not interesting issue on may point of view.
I would have prefer to focus on the strategy:
building such king of warrior will allow me to fight against such type without being lucky to win.
In some case, this behavior is an interesting feature.
In some other, it's a borring one for me.
For e.g., as said above, you may win the first fight, but you are not certain you will win the next. I don't need this feature on my point of view.

So be happy. That's the world. Everybody is different, and that's make this world a better world.

jobuck · May 19, 2003, 17:37

Arrian

Quote:

This irritates many gamers. Some learn to accept it & deal with it, some can't accept it and toss the game. Up to you, but don't make the decision until you understand how it works.

I think you have summarize the situation as it is.

I like to start above my level.
I think this suggest me the right questions and so, make me go ahead more quickly.

I prefer that than having to read all the huge doc before.
I don't remember how exactly was, but I just remember the good time I spent with civ1.
I believe that in civ3, they have add some feature making the game taking more time to end. As I see the deal now, if you want to win, you have to think much more than in the previous version.

You may argue that I should play at a lower level to avoid that if I don't like it.
You should be right. In the same time, if this game request to think, let think.

jobuck · May 19, 2003, 20:45

During a battle, a got an hero and an army.

What can I do with this ?
They die as soon they have meet the ennemy !

Flight · May 19, 2003, 20:52

rtfm tbh

Spiffor · May 20, 2003, 05:11

Jobuck :

A "hero" (Great Leader -GL- in the English version) is a non fighting unit. He is one individual, and cannot fight. Hence, he'll die as soon as he encounbters the enemy, and you must send him home as safe as possible.

A Great Leader is a precious asset in the game. You have 1/16 chance of getting one when a elite unit of yours wins.

A Great Leader allows you to finish any building in one turn (this is absolutely great to build Palaces or Wonders, that you cannot rudh otherwise). It also allows you to build 'armies', which can really help you during a military campaign. An army can contain 3 units that you put in. When an army fights, these 3 units fight at once. No one of these units dies as long as the whole army survives. As such, axcept when there are very bad odds, an army is likely to win any combat*.
Notice that when you create an army, it is empty. Fill it with units before sending your army to fight.

When you have a victorious army, you are allowed to build a few small wonders :
- Heroic Epic raises your odds of getting great leaders : your chances of getting one become 1/12
- The Military Academy allows you to build armies without needing a great Leader. It comes with military tradition.
- The Pentagon allows you to have 4 units in your armies rather than 3, making them even more powerful. I think it also wome with military tradition.

*However, your armies fight normally. So, if you are sending an army of 3 warriors (weakest unit) on a mechanized infantry (strongest defensive unit), your army will very probably lose. Also, if an up-to-date army gets repeatedly attacked the same turn, it will eventually lose. When your army is becoming low on health, you should send it home to heal.

Panag · May 20, 2003, 09:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
Like Louis X1V says, the terrain the defender is in can make things very different.

Mountains are best to defend in - defense is doubled (100%). Hills are next best at (50%) and the same is given to rivers (50%).

A city with walls also gets 50%, as does a city with population 7-12. A population 13 or more city gets 100%! Pity you can't build cities on mountains....

DON'T DO THE FOLLOWING UNTIL YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THE GAME. I like Civ because if you are playing with the latest patch (1.29f), download from

http:www.civ3.com

You can add extra units (100s of different types) and mod ("modify") the game a lot with the editor. OK, there are limits - but it's a game you can play again and again and have a different game every time. Like I said, save this for when you start getting confident, and have lots of warriors and archers at the start to deal with the other civs.

If you are attacking a unit with the same kind of unit, wouldn't you expect to lose about half the time? Remember, in real life, the defender always gets the advantage. So having a large military is a good idea in Civ.

Also, do not confuse the barbs ("barbarians") with AI civs. They are kind of a random civ that springs up in unpopulated areas at the start of the game. As Civilisation spreads out, the barbs die out. That is why at the start, keep your military units checking out for barbs & barb camps. A barb camp, successfully attacked, gets you a gold bonus. MUCH better than waiting for the barbs to come to you.

hi ,

dont get the patch if you are not happy , ..... why not

the patch fixes things , so in other words makes the game better , .....

patches and all can be downloaded from www.apolyton.net or .com also , ....

have a nice day

Cruddy · May 20, 2003, 14:57

Panag, I was just trying to limit amount of information. Too much information and new players often get confused and frustrated.

Perhaps comfortable would have been a better word.

You are right - the patch does fix bugs. I was trying to slow down the leap to the 1.29 editor and the realisation that the game can be modified.

I hope this makes my reasoning clear.

Panag · May 20, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
Panag, I was just trying to limit amount of information. Too much information and new players often get confused and frustrated.

Perhaps comfortable would have been a better word.

You are right - the patch does fix bugs. I was trying to slow down the leap to the 1.29 editor and the realisation that the game can be modified.

I hope this makes my reasoning clear.

hi ,

people should install the paches right after the initial install (!)

this way loads of problems are done with , .....

have a nice day

Louis XXIV · May 20, 2003, 20:19

I think we're babying him with advice

Cruddy · May 20, 2003, 20:21

I was trying not to BURY him with advice. Oh well.

Louis XXIV · May 21, 2003, 10:22

Yeah I know, i was just kidding

Kingof the Apes · May 22, 2003, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by jobuck
[...]
I would have prefer to focus on the strategy:
building such king of warrior will allow me to fight against such type without being lucky to win.
In some case, this behavior is an interesting feature.
In some other, it's a borring one for me.
For e.g., as said above, you may win the first fight, but you are not certain you will win the next. I don't need this feature on my point of view.

This isnt strategy though. There would be no debate of which unit would work best in a certain situation, all that would be required would be to build the 'super unit' and all your battles are as good as won. IMHO that is not strategy and definetly not fun.

jobuck · May 24, 2003, 11:22

Take a look to Cossack, a good rts game as well.

The demo can be downloaded here:
Cossacks demo

Others mirrors here:
mirror

You will see better how I like rts game to be.

But definitely, civ3 is one of the best rts game !