NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#199 WHAT CIV IS NOT There's whole incredible world beyond our computers #198 THE NATURE OF SEQUELS A really extensive review of some of the biggest games series #197 THE FIRST ONLINE RELEASE It's a new internet age and Civ3 is the first civ game of it, says Rasbelin #196 WHAT MAKES A GOOD CAR Not exactly a "if civ3 was a car" comparison #195 CIV III AND MOO3, PART II: TBS HAS A FUTURE We're here to stay! #194 CIVILIZATION III, A SHOE TOO BIG? The realistic faction speaks COLUMN ARCHIVE

So Civ III has been out for a little while now and one thing has become clear. The new AI has embraced the dreaded ICS strategy of expansion. For those of you who don’t know what ICS is, it stands for Infinite City Sleaze. This style of play was developed in an attempt to beat Civ at the Deity level. The idea carried over into MP play and only the truly mercenary adopted this style. The basic idea is to constantly build settlers and locate them any and everywhere to keep your city size below the population level that sparks revolt. A much better explanation is in the Great Library thread in the Civ II ­ Strategy section ( click here ) thanks again to the Scouse Gits.

My style of play in Civ tends to be different from most. In the original Civilization, the goal was to race to the wheel so your chariots could quickly rule the world. In Civ II, the race was to trade/Democracy to establish the lucrative trade routes which lead to quicker discovery and better weaponry. I eventually adopted a very isolationist style of play that emphasizes city growth and shunned the warmongering. I would much rather have my demographics show my citizens have the highest literacy rate, lowest family size, and lowest military service. I fell in love with the One City Challenge developed for Civ II (Thanks Paul!) for its emphasis on science and discovery over aggression, not to mention the added bonus of being able to finish a game at one sitting. When I read about the new cultural aspect being adopted for Civ III, I really felt this would finally be a reward for my style of play. I would out-culture the rest of the world, proudly looking down my nose at the ! low-class heathens. As Lee Corso would say, “Not so fast my friend.”

Since Civ III came out I have been playing at the Regent level as the Babylonians. I figured Regent would give me a chance to learn the game play of Civ III before stepping up to the big time. Since my goal is more advanced forms of government, I like the 1 turn for revolution aspect of being a “religious” society. I would carefully choose my city sites to ensure a balanced distribution of food/production. I would build defensive units to guard the cities, workers to connect and improve the surroundings, and finally, settlers to found new cities. It quickly became apparent that early expansion was necessary to keep up with the rapidly expanding AI civs. I was shocked when I began trading maps at the number of cities the other civilizations had founded. No big deal. I’d simply have to skip the early workers in favor of quickly building settlers/defensive units to go build cities. I would try and get to 15-20 cities quickly then focus on cultural improvements.

In my most recent game, I began to notice a disturbing trend among the opposing AI civ’s. They will build a city anywhere. In the middle of a desert! In the middle of a mountain/hill range! In the middle of a jungle! In the middle of an ice cap! If there is dry land more than two spaces away from an existing city, you can bet there will be a settler heading that way before long. I had about a 10x10 corridor of nothing but forest/jungle separating me from the English on one side and about a 10x6 corridor of nothing but desert separating me from the Persians on the other side. I would certainly build a city on the edge of a desert or jungle and work the bad terrain when necessary for the city to expand. But in the middle! Both the English and the Persians happily plopped a city smack dab in the middle of both corridors in their zeal for expansion. In the case of the English, they built 3 cities in that mess. Trading maps shows equally disturbing choices amongst the other civs.!

I realize I can culturally absorb these cities when they discover the magnificence of the great Babylonian culture, but what good is a city with no hope for expansion? I’ll eventually figure out how to get the hang of this new style of play, but it doesn’t make it right. : ) One of the things people had hoped for was an upgraded AI when Civ III came out. I say, be careful what you wish for.
---------
MBloomIII is a long time Civ addict whose job and family prevents him from playing Civ as much as is necessary for a fulfilling life.

Comment on this article!

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.