CIVIII Expansions?

[Bogdanovist]

I played CIVIII way back in the day when it first came out, I remember how bad it was before that first patch. Even after that though I remember not being to fussed with it and I went back to SMAX. I've been thinking of giving it another go though, as I can't even remember what I didn't like about it , and I know there have been a few expansions since then.

So my question is, how many expansion packs have come out and which should I buy to get the best version around at the moment? I don't really have time to play MP, just a bit of SP now and again.

[vorlon_mi]

There have been two expansion packs,
but they have been packaged in different ways.
Not only that, but the original Civ3 has been patched
to fix some of the bugs. The expansion packs
also included the patches, IIRC, but someone else
will likely give the details.

The first expansion pack was "Play the World", or PTW.
It added more civilizations, each with a UU,
and tweaked the tech tree just a bit.

The second expansion pack was "Civ 3 : Conquests",
or C3C, which added several scenarios, units,
city and terrain improvements, and changed the tech
tree more signifcantly. I've seen several posts here
that C3C save files may not be backward compatible
with C3 "vanilla" games. It included the updates from PTW.

The package that is currently being marketed as
"Civ 3 Complete" includes all 3 - patched vanilla,
PTW, and C3C. You could get that, or just get a recent
C3C package to get the latest bits.

[vmxa1]

Not to discourage anyone, but if you did not care for CivIII, I doubt C3C will change your mind.

[vorlon_mi]

What's not to like?

I agree.... the basic gameplay and characteristics
are preserved in the different expansion packs.

If one didn't like early Civ3 because of some bugs
or features that have been addressed, e.g.,
unable to keep newly conquered cities from flipping
by putting a large garrison, then perhaps it would be
worth giving Civ3 another try.

If one didn't like Civ3 because of key gameplay
differences between Civ2 or SMAX, then one still
won't like Civ3. I never played SMAC or SMAX,
but I have my own list of differences between Civ2 and
Civ3 where I like one game better than the other.

[joncnunn]

On the large garrision town still fliping, fixed in one of the vanilla patches.

On missing your favorite buildings from Civ II, most were readded in PTW. (Exception of Super Highways & Super Market)

Not wanting any possibility of cultural flip : I belive that was added as an option to one of the PTW patched.

Not liking the litter the map with rails: No fix adviable in Conquests other than moding to make rails impossible at all.

Not liking corruption: From Vanilla on, the mods can be done to reduce this, increase OCN, reduce govt corruption, add "reduce corruption" flags to buildings ...

Not liking Fundamenalist govt removed from civ II : Conquests added the Feudalism & Fasicsm govts to epic as a replacement for a huge unit support govts. In addition, Conquests allows mods to create govts with unlimited unit support. (See Imperlism in RoR and Tribal Council in FoR)

[vorlon_mi]

I've gotten used to several key differences between
the two games, esp. corruption, culture, and certain
city improvments. Your summary is a good one.

Some features about Civ3 that I especially like vs.
Civ2 include *national* support for units, rather than
city-focused support that can generate unhappiness,
and build queues so that I can tell cities that are
off the beaten path what to build, and focus my
attention on the battlefront or SSC.

The two biggest differences that I noticed and are
*not* addressed in any of the expansions or patches
are:
1) Changes in powers of may Great Wonders, and
2) The effect of era boundaries in the tech tree

Several GW have been diluted, esp. Leonardo's,
Great Wall, and Shakespeare's Theatre. One could
argue that some of these were *too* powerful in Civ2,
to the point of being unbalancing, but that's another
discussion. My point is: they're different, and it
affects strategy.
The era boundaries make the tech tree much less
elastic in Civ3 than in Civ2. It was possible to
pursue one branch in great depth, and ignore some
branches almost completely in Civ2. In Civ3,
one can make a beeline for Republic, or Monarchy,
but you have to get *all* the nonoptional Ancient Age
techs before you can get Monotheism or Gunpowder.

That homogenization, plus the observation that a tech
can be researched no faster than 4 turns in Civ3,
greatly affect one's scientific strategy.

[vmxa1]

BTW I never understood how people that liked CivII and Smac hated CivIII. I loved all three.

They have more things in common than things that are radically different.

[Shogun Gunner]

In a way I agree with you vmxa1, but there is that intangible element about playing Civ2 that allowed me to get into a rhythm when playing. Even though I play Civ3 extensively, I never get that "civ2" rhythm.

Hard to explain...perhaps someone will understand what I mean and explain it better.

This doesn't mean I don't like Civ3. I do.

[foxfire4321]

CivIII always seemed to have some intangible defect to it. Maybe it is the era system, maybe the lack of creativity showed by the design. I loved CivII when it came out and I still love SMAC/AX, but CivIII just seemed like a slightly prettier rehash. I wanted innovation, I wanted creativity, not the same old thing in a new cover. I really was glad I waited to buy the game until the CivIII Complete Edition came out. I really think that should have been the original CivIII game. The "expansions" were just an excuse for money and should have been features in the game to start. I can't imagine how cheated the people feel who paid close to list for the game and then the two expansions.

[vmxa1]

I paid full price and was happy to do it. What I would not want to imagine is waiting 2 or 3 more years for complete. I was just fried with CivII after all those years and Smac as well. I did not like Smax.

I played both just like I did III, game after game after game. The funny thing is I got to really resent the way some things worked in II, such as kill one, kill all.

III has many flaws, but none that really bother me. I had voted II as my #1 or #2 for years. Even though I played Smac non stop for a long time, it never did get to be my top game. Maybe that is why I just dropped it cold about 3 years back.

I have nothing bad to say about either as I thought they were great.

[Sabre2th]

When I first started Civ3, there were a number of things that I didn't like about it. I've dropped it a couple of times, but after coming back to it, I've seen that many of the things I didn't like initially have grown on me. Civ2 was absolutely amazing, but I think Conquests has it beat.

If you don't like Civ3 at first, play a couple more games and see if it grows on you.