Hate C3C

[Dis]

the palace cost is so ungodly expensive. What's up with that. no biggie, I use it to pre-build anyways. I never move my palace.

My last game I had no hope of getting early game wonders. My first 2 cities were shelling out settlers. Expansion was more important.

But I got St. Bach's and Michelangelo cathedral thingy. And several other important wonders in that age.

I missed out on shakespear's theatre. But that one isn't very important.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Dissident
the palace cost is so ungodly expensive. What's up with that. no biggie, I use it to pre-build anyways. I never move my palace.

The cost is expensive to prevent constant moving of the palace, which was used to "culture bomb" in older version of vanilla Civ3. (Comparing distances to the two contesting civ's palace is an important part of the culture flip formula.)

Originally posted by Dissident
My last game I had no hope of getting early game wonders. My first 2 cities were shelling out settlers. Expansion was more important.

But I got St. Bach's and Michelangelo cathedral thingy. And several other important wonders in that age.

I missed out on shakespear's theatre. But that one isn't very important.

Shakespeare's only effects one city anyway. Sistine, Bach's, and Smith's are arguably more important, with Leo's probably at the top.

[Dis]

yeah, I was running neck and neck with another civ. I was hoping getting a city over population 12 would help push up my science a bit. Esp. since I was building it in my science city (copernicus and theory of everything- err I mean Isaac's)

[Last Conformist]

If you head over to forums.civfanatics.com, there are rather a few WWII scenarios to chose from. They cover a wide range of sizes and accuracy/playability weightings, so you should be able to find something to your liking.

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I don't enjoy Conquests as much as Civ3 but I thought I would give it a fair trial.

I completely fail to see the difference between Civ3 and Conquests regarding Wonders. What should have changed here?
The corruption formula was altered, sure, but I *think* the majority of fans like it.


Btw, Shakespear's on Deity can win the game for you - a size 20 city almost guarantees the next crucial Wonders (like ToE and Hoover). Same goes for MoM earlier.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski


I completely fail to see the difference between Civ3 and Conquests regarding Wonders. What should have changed here?
The corruption formula was altered, sure, but I *think* the majority of fans like it.

You have several new wonders in C3C. Two generate units. You also have a change to the research rate as the 40 turn rate is now 50 turns.

Free tech from Phio and some wonders have ben altered. IOW lots of changes impact wonders in C3C.

[alexman]

I think the difference between Civ3 and C3C regarding Wonders that he dislikes is that MGLs can no longer rush them.

[Dis]

the wonder rushing has always been "broke" in civ3 as far as I'm concerned.

I'm happy with only science leaders being able to rush them

Although I really don't think any wonder rushing should be allowed.

Although maybe you can have the option to rush a wonder, but it lowers all your cities population to 1. Now that's a sacrifice. Not some useless leader. Or gold, or crawlers (smac).

[Nakar Gabab]

Science leaders rushing is perfectly acceptable, in my mind; MGLs can still be used for small wonders, and besides, armies are so good now I kinda wish Science Leaders could make them sometimes. Then I see Sistene Chapel: 1 and quickly forget I ever wished that.

Granted, they are kind of random, but I think that their rarity makes rushing a wonder a big thing - and a nice one. Plus, the AI is actually likely to get and use SGLs, which is good, because they seem to fritter away any MGLs they get (if they get any at all, since they only seem to go to war with me) on rush-builds that don't appear to be much help.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab
Plus, the AI is actually likely to get and use SGLs, which is good, because they seem to fritter away any MGLs they get (if they get any at all, since they only seem to go to war with me) on rush-builds that don't appear to be much help.

Too true. Someone on here posted once about watching an AI use a MGL (don't remember if it was PTW or C3C) to rush a spearman.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Dissident
I try not to buy games I don't like or know I won't like.

Though I have made a few "mistakes" Sim Golf. Black and White. Star Wars Rebellion.

Call me crazy but I liked Rebellion.
(I guess it was that combination of character interaction and strategic combat)

[Dis]

Originally posted by Vince278


Call me crazy but I liked Rebellion.
(I guess it was that combination of character interaction and strategic combat)

crazy

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Biggles
As you can see from my registration, I have been playing the Civ series of games for over thirty years

How? IIRC, Sid and Bruce didn't make it till 1991. (The old Hartland Trefoil and Avalon Hill board games did come out a lot earlier (1980), but, barring a time machine, I don't get 30).

[Dis]

I don't think computers existed back then

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


How? IIRC, Sid and Bruce didn't make it till 1991. (The old Hartland Trefoil and Avalon Hill board games did come out a lot earlier (1980), but, barring a time machine, I don't get 30).

It's a joke, albeit a strange one. Notice that his registration date is on New Years 1970. For some reason, that is the date the software assigns to people whose registration date it doesn't know. (Some people registered before February 1998, IIRC, which was before the forum kept track of registration dates.)