Reasons to play C3C vs. PTW

[Krill]

The Maya are both Ind and Agri. The best REXers in the game. Too bad for not being able to build archers.

[DrSpike]

C3C has the potential to be better for sure..........I just hope they finish it.

[Harovan]

I went happily back to PtW, what concerns PBEM. It's not optimal, but a nice balanced game with a smarter AI (including barbarians) than Conquests has. But I don't play SP Civ3 at all at the moment.

I will surely give Conquests another shot, once it is out of the beta phase, perhaps in a year or so, if ever. It has the potential to be a very good game, but so far it's one big construction site.

[Krill]

SR, your right, it is not perfect, but Different games suit different people. I would suggest C3C to warmongers, and PTW to Peaceniks, but You can play each game with the others strategy.

And I'm a peacenik, and I play C3C on Emp. It is not to hard. I like the challenge

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by shmily_dana
I like using the sub bug start a war with someone. I figure it is "an international incident".

Bingo, the sub bug can be quite useful.

[Paddy]

well you have to be in C3C to win it...

you have the game, take the plunge....

[Switch]

There is nothing I miss from PTW, although this is coming from a casual SP gamer, though I'm getting an idea for a new mod/scenario...

Anyways, the tech tree changes brought around, besides the addition of a Fascism tech (for said government), are:
* Electronics requirement removed from Motorized Transportation
* Radio Tech removed
* Civil Defense requires Electronics
* Advanced Flight now requires Electronics
* Radar Towers require Advanced Flight

No one's really sure why they did it, but I haven't heard anyone complain about it.

[Harovan]

I would suggest C3C to warmongers, and PTW to Peaceniks

Yes, Conquests is a war game, although there are better ones out.

Bingo, the sub bug can be quite useful

You shouldn't repeat that too often, or else it will never be fixed. Besides, it'S way too random to be of any use.

No one's really sure why they did it, but I haven't heard anyone complain about it

You must be deaf. Lots of people complained, not because it's a bad change, but because there are more annoying bugs to fix, like the stealth units bug, dumb barbarians (they were good ip PtW), dumb AI tile improvement (also better in PtW) etc., only to name a few.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You must be deaf. Lots of people complained, not because it's a bad change, but because there are more annoying bugs to fix, like the stealth units bug, dumb barbarians (they were good ip PtW), dumb AI tile improvement (also better in PtW) etc., only to name a few.

I was referring to people complainging about the change being a bad change, ie one that makes the game worse. Of course people have complained about the bugs, you WOULD have to be deaf (err, blind) not to see them...

Main problems I've noticed people complain about: sub bug and bad military leader use...requires special modifications to actually get armies (eg, have the palace spawn armies).

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by DrSpike

Doc, I was gonna ask, but then I saw your sig and thought better of it

[Last Conformist]

Apart from the sub bug, there's just about only one thing I miss from PTW; half-way decent barbarians.

That said, I believe the Vanilla Barbarians were the best ones yet, so I'm still annoyed they were merely half-way decent in PTW.

Oh, yes, I'm not entirely happy with the changes to Ironclads, either. Researching that extra tech never seens worthwhile, and at least in my games the AI hasn't been much keen to get it either. Going directly from Frigates to Cruisers feels weird. The naval unit progression was weird enough 'fore - this made it even odder.

[WarriorPoet]

Yes, there seem to be more good than bad in C3C.

The ironclad extra tech is un-nerving...I think that should have stayed as part of steam...

I look forward to testing some mods from this community, I really want to see the following mod:

Minoans vs. Greeks vs. Romans vs. Phoenecian City-States vs. Egyptians vs. Ostergoths, Visigoths, Gauls, Persians, Carthage, the Kingdom of Ethiopia, and Arabian city-states

Palace generating 1 army per 15 turns.

All capitols set in place with a couple cities for Greece, Rome, Carthage, and Ethiopia.

You'd have to place the city-states, of which I guess the minoans would be represented by Crete...which isn't entirely historically accurate...

Guess that's the rise of Rome scenario with a twist?

[Arrian]

FYI: I noticed you mentioned the Ag/Ind combo earlier. It IS strong. But not quite as strong as you might think if you're under the impression that Ind is the same as in PTW. Ind has been largely nerfed.

Instead of a 100% boost to worker speed, it's now 50% and slaves work at 1/2 speed of non-industrious workers, no matter what (slaves are the same speed for all civs). That's a pretty big hit. Consequently, I see Ind as a 2nd tier trait now.

Alexman mentions the strength of the new traits. They are strong, but as has been noted by others, Agricultural isn't the absolute monster it seems to be if you don't restart to get a river/lake start. Many people - myself included - often do that, and that skews perception of the trait. Under the right conditions, it is indeed immensely powerful. Seafaring is pretty much always powerful on archipelago or continents maps.

-Arrian

[WarriorPoet]

Yes, the free boost in sea unit movement could be quite powerful.

I'm sad to see that they nerfed the Ind trait...boo

Does that make Religious or Scientific the pick of choice after Seafaring?

[DrSpike]

The most powerful trait combo in general is seafaring/agricultural, which gives you about 10 traits worth of traits (ok so I exaggerated a leetle ). However one must always be careful of making blanket statements since it always depends to a degree.

After those ubertraits I like scientific.