Thinking of playing the Conquests - Advice Please

[Dis]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


I don't know. Were I not interested in history, the various little inaccuracies and ahistoricalities wouldn't bug me.

Couple comments:

Mesopotamia: A glorified epic-game Ancient Age on a pre-set map. The Ancient Mediterranean Mod does this much better.

Rise of Rome: Beware of the Persian juggernaught!

Mesoamerica: The Silent Hunter is broken. Quite enjoyable till that comes along, but then it's down the drain.

WWII Pacific: I'm impressed that the AI actually manages to wage a decent naval and aerial campaign. A bit too easy, tho.

out of curiousity, what is the silent hunter and how is it broken? I don't remember ever using that unit.

[Last Conformist]

The Silent Hunter is the final offensive unit, at 5.3.2 with Stealth Attack (with everything except workers, settlers, leaders, armies, and naval units as valid targets).

It's broken in that it comes at 80 shields, while the final defender is 1.3.1 at 60 shields, and the preceeding attacker is 3.1.1 at 60 shields. Once the SH is available, it's simply no point in building any other military land units, and it eats all earlier units for breakfast.

You may have won the game before it came available - it should be doable at the middle and lower levels at least.

[Dis]

yeah I swept through that scenario very fast. Next go around, I'll play a more of a builder style.

[marc420]

Thanks for the thread ya'll. I keep wondering if I want to buy this game. Generally I'm still pretty PO'd at Firaxis for essentially selling Civ 3 three separate times. If I had never bought Civ 3, I'd probably be willing to by C3C. But since I've already paid once for this game, the question is what am I getting now that's worth another $30? The opinions that the Conquests were mainly a PR exercise, and that they seem to have AI and units issues pretty much confirms my very low opinion of Firaxis. As well as the comment that these Conquests were done by another firm, and the Firaxis has pretty much moved on. Pretty typical for Firaxis ... basically we've sucked what money we could from this XP, so if the customers (ie suckers) want fixes, well that's just too bad.

I started out po'd at Firaxis for the crappy state Civ3 was released in to make the Xmas season. Then they deliberately withheld the multiplayer in order to make people rebuy the game in order to get this basic feature. Now they try to get people to rebuy the game a 3rd time to get these scenarios. And to top it off they are essentially telling people they need to purchase the patches to the game (Ie, no patches for Civ3, you must purchase an expansion pack to get the bug fixes).

I'm still interested enough to come check these forums occaisionally. But in general, Firaxis has lost a fan by continually trying to suck more and more money from me through these means. The message to me is that if they do produce a Civ4, then I'm not touching it until they get at least two expansion packs out. That way I can only pay once to get a working/patched copy of the game with all the features slowly dribbled in through the XPs.

[Krill]

And to top it off they are essentially telling people they need to purchase the patches to the game (Ie, no patches for Civ3, you must purchase an expansion pack to get the bug fixes).

No, the patches are/were always available for download free of charge. And since the game was written with the code that was used in C2, then SMAC/X, I think they did a pretty good job of it.

[alexman]

Originally posted by marc420
If I had never bought Civ 3, I'd probably be willing to by C3C. But since I've already paid once for this game, the question is what am I getting now that's worth another $30?

Considering you can't play C3C without Civ3, you wouldn't be able to get very far without buying Civ3. So, you paid full price for Civ3 a couple of years ago and you can get it now for under $10. You paid for those years worth of entertainment. Not a bad deal per hour of play, if you ask most here.

The opinions that the Conquests were mainly a PR exercise, and that they seem to have AI and units issues pretty much confirms my very low opinion of Firaxis.

C3C has several enhancements to the core game, which make it better balanced, especially in multiplayer. I would never go back to vanilla Civ3 for SP, or even PTW for multiplayer. The conquests are for those who enjoy playing scenarios, but for the rest of us this expansion pack is well worth it, even without playing any of the conquests.

As well as the comment that these Conquests were done by another firm, and the Firaxis has pretty much moved on. Pretty typical for Firaxis ... basically we've sucked what money we could from this XP, so if the customers (ie suckers) want fixes, well that's just too bad.

FYI, they are still working on fixes. At some point, 2 and a half years after the initial release and 6 months after the release of the last expansion pack, they have to move on, don't you think?

...they deliberately withheld the multiplayer in order to make people rebuy the game in order to get this basic feature.

Producing a game has a budget. Somebody has to pay for the programmers to incorporate all the features, or some of the features are going to be left out. An expansion pack gets a new budget, so you can get the features that were left out. Nobody is going to work for free just so you can get what you think should be in a game. I know plenty of people here who own C3C but never play MP, so the feature can't be that basic.

And to top it off they are essentially telling people they need to purchase the patches to the game (Ie, no patches for Civ3, you must purchase an expansion pack to get the bug fixes).

At least you can get the fixes. If there were no expansion packs, there would be no fixes. Do you think they would be continuing to patch the game almost 3 years after it was released otherwise? The expansion packs paid for the fixes. If you want them, go buy the expansion packs.

The message to me is that if they do produce a Civ4, then I'm not touching it until they get at least two expansion packs out. That way I can only pay once to get a working/patched copy of the game with all the features slowly dribbled in through the XPs.

And that would be around the year 2007? Enjoy your beloved vanilla Civ3 until then.

[vmxa1]

I wish I had a dollar for all the post saying these same points, none of them valid.

Ask me about Heroes IV and all the patches, I never saw for it and it had two X-packs.

BTW I am one that never played any MP and owns C3C.

Anyway I think Alexman settled it just fine.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by marc420
The opinions that the Conquests were mainly a PR exercise....

I believe you may have been quoting something I posted, so let me clarify what I said so that others don't take it out of context as you seem to have done.

The conquests in C3C for me were a "nice to have", but for me it's always been the epic game that has hooked me. Even ignoring the conquest scenarios, there is a vast difference between vanilla civ3 and C3C and in my opinon the C3C epic game, fully patched, is immeasurably superior to vanilla civ.

I should also point out that this thread was started by a well respected and long time civer who already has a deep knowledge of the game, and so implicit in most reponses was the acknowledgement that criticism of the conquests does not necessarily translate to dissatisfaction with the epic game as a whole.

So if you're looking to rant about civ3, you're unlikely to get much support in this thread

[Master Zen]

I don't want to be a spoil sport BUT...

Releasing a buggy game is inexcusable. Firaxis has SERIOUSLY messed up many things (the most incredible being the corruption problems with the FP in C3C) which they should've gotten right in the first place.

While patches are a good way to fix things up, some companies think that they can release a game under any half-finished state and justify it by patching it many months later. Sadly, the Internet and fast connections pretty much eliminate any incentives that companies have to get the games out right at the first chance.

Other than that, I think alexman's other points are valid, plus C3C in 1.22 seems pretty decent.


(btw, the Conquests and new units were made by Breakaway Games, and conisdering the limitations of Civ3's scenario capability, they did a damn good job)

[Catt]

I played the Meso-American Conquest twice (it was quick!).Thoughts when I'm thinking more clearly.

Catt

[Catt]

I played the MesoAmerican Conquest and drew the Inca as my random civ. It went so quickly that I played it again as the Inca in a different style.

This one may suffer from a challenging "AI bug" in that the AI doesn't seem to know how to take advantage of the unique features of the scenario. Between available weaker civs (the scenario has 3 designated "leader" cvis and 3 designated "fodder" civs -- the fodder start without advantages given to the leaders) and barb camps, it was pretty easy to amass a large slave workforce. These slaves help in producing terrain improvements and then can be sacrificed for culture points. I didn't play it in debug so I can't be certain, but it sure seems likely that the AI civs will never sacrifice a slave for culture -- and that's the problem since a 2000 culture one city victory condition means that large numbers of slaves gives an early victory. In my warmongerish game, I sacrificed 30+ slaves (60% of the culture needed to win) -- the AI civs appeared not to sacrifice at all. I think it would be easy to win via one-city-culture just by sacrificing slaves -- no wonders or culture improvements needed.

So I played again with a self-imposed rule of no sacrifice. I built most of the wonders and again reached a 2000-culture victory well before time ran out (this was Emperor level, for reference). I found the tech tree to be a bit uninteresting -- though not professing to know the scenario inside out, the more powerful of the approaches to the tech tree seems to leap right out at you. City improvements are by and large ungodly expensive, and there wasn't much need to bother with more than an improvmeent or two.

I also agree with The Last Conformist that the Silent Hunter unit is out of place / broken. Once the enabling tech is researched, the only real reason to build any military unit other than the SH is if one still desires to enslave enemies -- otherwise it is hands-down the most potent force available (offense or defense) and so late warmongering for a domination victory (if not achieved earlier) becomes an unending stream of SHs going a-conquering.

The rule changes are not so difficult to require extensive pre-game study (although I failed to appreciate that tobacco is a luxury in this scenario until late in the first game ). I enjoyed it, and it was very quick, but (at least when drawing the Inca as the human civ) I'd venture that the Conquest plays about two difficulty levels easier than what one would expect.

Catt

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by Catt
I didn't play it in debug so I can't be certain, but it sure seems likely that the AI civs will never sacrifice a slave for culture.

I haven't played the Meso-American conquest in debug bit I have with Age of Discovery and the AI definitely sacrifices slaves for culture. I don't think I've seen the meso-american civs improve land with them. I thought they might sacrifice them in the nearest city but I've actually seen the AI take them to the capital even when it wasn't. Sacrificing them in far away cities doesn't help cultural victory much but it's useful claiming land and I've certainly done it. It's unlikely that the AI chooses between these two options on a sensible basis but it might.

Of course the European AIs in AoD put a high priority on returning treasure as well and you wouldn't notice playing as a European civ because the AI just takes so long about it. The AI is just not any good at that type of goal.

I don't know why the AI is so bad at turning combat into slaves into culture. It may just be that they don't manage to get slaves back from the front line as often.

[Dis]

I actually did a domination victory in the mesoamerican.

Started as the aztecs. Built up a little while, and then started rampaging.

that might be a little more challenging, although not so much for me. But a few times the ai's UU posed a few problems. If they had more of those, they might have given me problems. Because taking Jaguar warriors against javelin throwers was no easy task. Getting rid of the Mayans was the most difficult thing.

[Last Conformist]

If one desires a real challenge in Mesoamerica, one should mod the game to allow play as the Olmecs, Toltecs or Moche.

(And someone tell me why the Toltecs start all down there in the south? Tula is north of Tenochtitlán! And if they specifically wanted that start loc, why not pick a tribe from the right are?)

[Catt]

Originally posted by Nor Me


I haven't played the Meso-American conquest in debug bit I have with Age of Discovery and the AI definitely sacrifices slaves for culture. I don't think I've seen the meso-american civs improve land with them. I thought they might sacrifice them in the nearest city but I've actually seen the AI take them to the capital even when it wasn't. Sacrificing them in far away cities doesn't help cultural victory much but it's useful claiming land and I've certainly done it. It's unlikely that the AI chooses between these two options on a sensible basis but it might.

Ah, good point. I was principally watching capitals since they presented the only conceivable threat of a culture challenge -- the AI may very well sacrifice in the most convenient location, regardless of the strategic value of the individual sacrifice.

Catt