Civ 3 + conquests , what do i miss

[rofloflo]

Any notable things im missing from not installing PTW ?

I dont really want to play against other people yet.

[Sabre2th]

Conquests includes PTW, so you're not really missing much of anything. A lot of people here (myself included) will tell you that Conquests is the best version of the game, so I'd say you're in good shape

[Drakan]

You're missing the AI building armies.

You're missing ring city placement.

You're missing having abundant strategic resources.

[Addled Platypus]

when you are ready...PBEM is easier than internet

look us up

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Drakan
You're missing the AI building armies.

They'll never be good at that anyway.

You're missing ring city placement.

Moderately lame exploit that most people either can't be bothered, or just plain refuse, to use.

You're missing having abundant strategic resources.

Everyone has a preference where resources are concerned, but that can be changed in the editor. so...

And anyway...Conquests includes PTW if I'm not mistaken

[rofloflo]

Thanks for the input, i just didn't want to start a game only to realize half way through that i am missing something that radically changes the way the game is played.

[Dis]

you're not missing much. It's just the AI was actually a little better with the latest patch of Play the World. It seems the developers (outside developer for the latest expansion- conquests) did not design their expansion with the latest PTW patch. So some of the AI upgrades are not in conquests.

Most easily noticed is barbarian behaviour. They only attack in certain directions. This can be exploited by human players. But barbarians aren't a big part of my games ( I have them at the 3rd lowest setting I believe), so I don't really care.

The invisible unit bug is pretty bad, I'll admit. But I never really used subs anyways. I never liked the way submarine warfare is implemented in any of the civ games (or smac). But it does become annoying when playing certain Conquest scenarios.

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Originally posted by Dis
you're not missing much. It's just the AI was actually a little better with the latest patch of Play the World. It seems the developers (outside developer for the latest expansion- conquests) did not design their expansion with the latest PTW patch. So some of the AI upgrades are not in conquests.

Most easily noticed is barbarian behaviour. They only attack in certain directions. This can be exploited by human players. But barbarians aren't a big part of my games ( I have them at the 3rd lowest setting I believe), so I don't really care.

The invisible unit bug is pretty bad, I'll admit. But I never really used subs anyways. I never liked the way submarine warfare is implemented in any of the civ games (or smac). But it does become annoying when playing certain Conquest scenarios.

Sorry to sound rude, but most of this is plain simply not correct.
The C3C AI does have some problems:
Sub bug. Worse in terrain improvements (actually, the problem is that they'll never change existing ones, with Electricity for example; obviously, the AI workers use that automation now). Armies (no biggie; they never wre able to use them correctly anyway). City placement (they somehow forgot to consider coastal locations).
Aside from that, most critics only list problems that have been in the game since ever (Army Immunity, for example), but weren't noticed before...
The Barbarian behavior is exactly like you'll see it with the muc praised "NoAIPatrol=1" ini setting for PtW. Lots of players loved that, so they made it default for C3C - and only then someone noticed that kills the Barbs. But, this issue can be completely solved by simply adding the line "NoAIPatrol=0" in the C3C ini file.

On the other hand, the AI Civs were strengthened in countless ways in C3C:
First and foremost, the corruption/FP model benefits the AI now. In Vanilla/PtW, the AI gained substantially less from the FP as the human; to such an extent it was pointless for them to grow above 2x OCN.
In C3C, a huge AI is a huge thread.
Naval warfare and amphibious landing (while still weak) have been improved drastically. Longbows (which the AI always loved to build) are now useful. TOWs. The AGR trait is very useful for the AI. SGLs help them.

In fact, some players prefer PtW because they consider it more balanced. They may have a point, since in C3C both the human and the AI Civs are stronger. Thus, certain playstyles/levels may appear too strong/weak in C3C.
In general, PtW is at foremost easier to exploit. That's why players stick there. Have a look at the CFC SGotMs, where all versions are played, and you'll see that the former versions always win substantially faster - that doesn't necessarily mean they're easier; but, once you know what to do, the AI is helpless.

[Harovan]

Sorry to sound rude, but most of this is simply not correct.

The terrain improvements are back to checkerboard irrigation. And the AI never changed this after Electricity, not even in PtW.

The missing armies are very well a biggie. They may not have been used in a correct way (along with so many other things), but still were a pain to deal with, back then, when they still existed.

City placement is horrible and for the first time actually leaves holes in the terrain roster.

NoAIPatrol=0 makes the barbarians patrol. However not as well as they did in PtW. And they still attack only in one direction.

The new corruption/FP model did not strengthen the AI, it dumbed down the game. Just switch off your brain and build the FP in the first city, that calls for work. Even if it is a remote one-shield city popped from a hut. Oh wait, the human wouldn't do this. The AI however would.

A huge AI has been a huge threat in all versions of Civ3, not only Conquests. It has never been a thread, however.

I did not notice any improvement in naval landings, let alone a drastical, and naval warfare is as lame as it always was in Civ3. Perhaps pirates add some spice, however they are subject to another bug.

Longbowmen could be made useful in PtW by simply adding zero range bombardement, that's a one-minute mod in the editor and in fact, many mods did so.

TOWs are no improvement. They are just added fluff. The only new thing marginally useful in C3C compared with PtW are anti aircraft units.

Some of the new C3C units greatly benefit the human player. Curraghs for instance. Great early and cheap naval explorers. Able to uncover all coastlines and make all contacts already in the ancient age. Especially if you're seafaring! Just that the AI doesn't build them.

Speaking of contacts, another clear shortcoming of Conquests is contact trading moved ahead into the medieval age. In Civ3 and PtW, the AI would extort all contacts from you soon after you made them. To hold them back would mean to risk an unwanted war. This is gone in C3C. The only thing the AI extorts now is the lame and obligatory 22 gold. And you can exploit your Curragh powered contacts at hearts content.

The AGR trait is largely unbalanced and favors the human player by a long shot. It is a gamble, which gives a huge boost if you have fresh water, and a disadvantage, if not. Most humans (except a small bunch of hardcore players) will restart, if they don't have fresh water. The AI can not restart.

SGLs help everybody.

The only thing easier to exploit in PtW is the city rank corruption bug. Conquests has other things easy to exploit. The barbarian behavior for instance. Or having the AI declaring war at you and enjoying the happiness boost, for instance by luring them with a privateer.

In general, Conquests had good features and could have been easily the best TBS game ever released. But due to time shortages pre-release its quality was blown.

Thank God, both companies Breakaway Games and Atari are not part of the development of Civ4. I'm still in the hope, that Firaxis and Take2 will do a better job.

[Drakan]

Very interesting post Sir Ralph. Thanks for sharing the info with us.

For a comprehensive list of changes:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104294&page=1&pp=20

[Jaybe]

... The only new thing marginally useful in C3C compared with PtW are anti aircraft units.

I have never seen an AI build more than one flak unit. Becomes another human exploit.

One thing that Conquests is better at is the Editor, for modding the game. Much better than the PtW Editor.

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

NoAIPatrol=0 makes the barbarians patrol. However not as well as they did in PtW. And they still attack only in one direction.

Believe me, that was always the case. It's a bug in the Barb target selection, and confirmed by Soren in some semi-official thread.
The AI naval landing and escort was dedicately improved in C3C. Hard to figure into numbers, but if you'd ever played the WW2 conquest with the old behavior, you'd noticed a huge difference (that was part of the beta). No doubt, they still suck at it, though. Same with the terrain improvements - that was completely redone, and it is different (=worse) now. As well as city placement; and I do agree on both poits being a step backwards.
The AGR trait helps the human, sure. But, it helps the AI more than any other trait as well.
The AI builds and uses tons of Curraghs - on Sid. Rarely on Deity as well, never below. I, again, agree that this issue helps the human. But, it is a balance (build preferences/shield costs) problem, not a general AI flaw.
If you consider TOWs lame in the hands of the AI, I wonder which levels you play (or maybe you are just so good that 'your' AIs never make it there). Taking out metros defended by them is fundamentelly different from taking out metros defended by Guerilla...
SGLs help at foremost the AI on the higher levels. In the former versions, the human always kept around GLs to rush the important wonders; the AI used them at once. Now, you hardly get a SGL - and the AI uses them correctly.
Huge AIs are a threat in C3C. 100k culture. A non-issue before.
The delayed contact/map trading is a two-sided sword. Sure, it stops the AI from early extortions - but it also stops the human from early phoney alliances.
Pirates are not subject ot any bug.
And, Breakaway isn't responsible for the C3C faults. They designed the Conquests, and made proposals to Firaxis for the AI and game mechanics - so it is indeed Firaxis who are to blame .
it's not that I couldn't agree with lots of debattable issues. But again, you're listing incorrect assumptions - and such things dominate the C3C/PtW comparism.
C3C definitely has no such insane flaw as RCP. Everything else is a minor issue, whether it is pro- or anti-C3C.

[Dis]

is there a problem with AI amphibious landings? I have never seen one.

At least not if you play Napolean. Those bastards (the bastard English of course) will land 16 units in your territory. Not easy taking out that many units on your least defended city (they always go for your most vulnerable position).

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski
The AI naval landing and escort was dedicately improved in C3C. Hard to figure into numbers, but if you'd ever played the WW2 conquest with the old behavior, you'd noticed a huge difference (that was part of the beta).

I played the Middle Ages conquest, after which I laughed and was done with these scenarios.

The AI builds and uses tons of Curraghs - on Sid. Rarely on Deity as well, never below.

Which means, about 99% of all C3C players won't see them.

If you consider TOWs lame in the hands of the AI, I wonder which levels you play (or maybe you are just so good that 'your' AIs never make it there). Taking out metros defended by them is fundamentelly different from taking out metros defended by Guerilla...

I didn't call them lame. I called them added fluff. Additional units are no improvement worth an expansion pack, as they could be easily modded into the original game.

Pirates are not subject ot any bug.

Try to repair an injured privateer in one of your harbors, or to stack it with a transport, when an AI frigate is around. You will have instantly war declared on you. Can be annoying, but is wonderful exploitable too if you want the war and are out for the happiness boost.

Note, that this bug may have been around earlier, I am unsure about it, since I never bothered much with them. But in C3C it is especially obvious, since privateers multiply to big numbers due to enslavement.

C3C definitely has no such insane flaw as RCP. Everything else is a minor issue, whether it is pro- or anti-C3C.

This is the absolutely worst thing about Conquests, and I will never forgive this to Firaxis, ever, even if Civ4 will be good (which still remains to be proven). PtW could have been near perfect (in the limited terms of Civ3) with the RCP exploit fixed. A lot of the Conquests changes could have been modded into PtW even with the limited modding capabilities of Civ3. And the rest isn't worth a new expansion pack, anyway

But in order to sell more Conquests packages they announced, that they won't fix it in PtW, but only in Conquests. Which left us with a buggy PtW and a second expansion pack, albeit RCP-fixed, but soaked with other bugs and issues, which never were fixed. With other words, Firaxis failed to deliver a halfway decent game worth to be played in the years of anticipation of the next sequel.

I have been a dedicated TBS player before, but as a logical consequence to this customer treatment I stopped to play all Civ3 whatsoever. So your question about the difficulty level I play I have to answer, none of them.

[Cort Haus]

The other thing about C3C was the rush for the December market and a failed promise which saw it released with an unplayable FP bug. At least one poster here I know - on this thread in fact - booked time off work for what turned out to be a turkey.