Amazon.com reviews and strategy....

[nationalist]

Zero-Tau, I think that that review was put up by Coracle or Jimmytrick.

[vmxa1]

It does look like a post I have seen here. Any one who thinks that civ2 is better and civ3 is easier, has me confused. I loved civ2, but the game was very easy at any level. The fun part is subjective and I can not fault ones choice on that. I wonder how much of it is due to our own memories. I can not have fun the same way I use to as I have changed. Some things no longer strike me as fun or funny as they did when I was much younger and I know it is easy to recall fondly of those days. My dad use to wax nostalgic about the his navy dads in WW2, but I know it was not the navy, but his youth that made it a pleasant memory.

[jshelr]

Careful guys

There is a standard set of cartoons that show professors standing before a blackboard LoL at a bunch of squiggles that make no sense to anyone else. Civ III is very complicated and understanding it is something like acquiring a professional competency -- say hairdresser, to put it in perspective -- certainly civ III is easier than plumbing.

Seriously, don't sell yourselves short. CivIII is not for your average guy. Nor is chess or bridge. You are a bit special, if a bit wierd.

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by nationalist
Zero-Tau, I think that that review was put up by Coracle or Jimmytrick.

That was my point. In fact, it was put up on Amazon not too long after Coracle made his post here. Coincidence? I think not.

But the level displayed by the above reviewers came nowhere near the level displayed by some RPG reviewers.

Really? Got linkage?

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Theseus
How did you keep from laughing out loud??

Well, I guess because he was silently weeping?

If it wasn't for the aployton visitors, one sometimes could think all effort put in developing Civ3 just is ... perls for the swines .

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Arrian
When I asked him how he could fail to notice a golden age, which significantly boost shield & commerce output, he sorta shrugged and said "I don't pay attention to that stuff." Translation: "I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm just moving units around."

-Arrian

To be honest... I still use many things from Civ2. (Yups, didn't defeat regent yet).

Main reason for this is, just like Arrian stated, I too have a job, a wife and kids and thus spending less time on AND playing Civ AND grazing on FanSites as well. So most of the Info a recall I got from the fantastic manual that came along with Civ2.

Too bad that modern game producers seem to have lost the ancient ability to create decent manuals.

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by jshelr
Careful guys

There is a standard set of cartoons that show professors standing before a blackboard LoL at a bunch of squiggles that make no sense to anyone else. Civ III is very complicated and understanding it is something like acquiring a professional competency -- say hairdresser, to put it in perspective -- certainly civ III is easier than plumbing.

Seriously, don't sell yourselves short. CivIII is not for your average guy. Nor is chess or bridge. You are a bit special, if a bit wierd.

No kidding. Litmus test: if you have even a partial grasp on how corruption works in this game, you are out of the mainstream of Civ players and one of those professors.

I have several capable, intelligent, friends that own versions of Civ 3 who know very little about fan sites, but play a decent (not large) amount. You would be surprised at their gaps in knowledge and many, many things they believe are true which are far from it. In their defense the civlopedia and manual leave out such basic game play facts (hey, what do those three numbers mean on the bottom right hand side of my screen) that without these sites much of what is going on is a mystery.

Oh, and the concept of the AI being deficient in areas is laughable to them: “It can sometimes beat me, I’m a smart guy, it must be good.”

Originally posted by Theseus
We should make a FAQ of the stuff that new players typically don;t know, as well as the basic stuff they should do when starting out.

Not a bad idea. Just off the top of my head, those friends I mentioned were surprised to discover things considered the most basic common knowledge here – that scouts can’t pop barbs for huts, or that settlers won’t be popped in certain situations. They had no idea the AI is lured toward under-defended/non-defended cities. Or the fundamentals on deals and how they effect attitude. How could they?

[tuckson]

Originally posted by TheArsenal

Oh, and the concept of the AI being deficient in areas is laughable to them: “It can sometimes beat me, I’m a smart guy, it must be good.”

Well, that the AI (especially in the lower levels) plays like a 3 year old kid sometimes seems to be compensated bij some form of cheating. I recall someone lauging on this matter, but ...

But maybe you're right and it's just my (lack of) playing style. Anyway, when I am playing a civ, with more than twice the number of cities other civs have, and my units keep being beaten by their emenies (I loose 5 to them 1, even elite units of mine vs standard units of them, for example my veteran and elite archers attack their standard warriors and lose). Of course this can happen, but not so many times. Then either I am doing something wrong, or the game is playing with different rules on me. And yes, this was only chieftain level, and no, I'm not losing the game since my economy is solid enough to produce new units a turn.

But still I think someting stinks. In a chieftain game I should be able to rush through. Of course the lack of decent resources (Iron for example) also stinks, but that's a normal risk in the game.

Just my 2 ct.

[Jon Shafer]

That's quite a bump... almost 2 years.

No offense to anyone here, but I find anything below Deity level sickeningly easy (and Diety and above only because the AI starts with such HUUUGE advantages that you have to win an early war to stay alive).

I guess the ability to play well comes mostly from experience and exposure to the game. I've been playing it quite a lot ever since vanilla Civ 3 came out (when was that, 3 years ago? ), and I pretty much know every nook and cranny that the game engine has to offer.

If anyone is having trouble with wars, a good way to help move things along is with combined forces... a large stack of Catapults, Swordsmen, Horsemen and Spearmen can be very deadly to the AI, especially when you learn how it operates and are able to defeat its initial stack. Catapults are excellent on offense and defense (though things can get kind of messy when you're trying to bombard a city that's above size 6 on a hill with fortified vet Spears...), and a large helping of them usually is very useful.

And always use veteran units. Build Barracks in all your high shield cities to produce military units, and use your lower shield cities with no Barracks to build Catapults (and other Artillery units). I like to have a ratio of around 3:2:2:1 for my stacks, Swords-Horses-Cats-Spears. So an army of 15 Swords should have 10 Catapults, 10 Horsemen and 5 Spearmen. Additionally, packaging as many Workers as it takes to build a road on flat land in one turn is highly helpful (2 Workers for IND civs, 3 for non-IND ones) along with a Settler or two to build offensive forts, though the latter two are helpful mostly for games against human players (since if you play your cards right, you won't need such advanced tactics against the AI).

Launch the Catapults to reduce city size, destroy the Barracks, get a few HP hits as well. Follow up with the Horsemen, who should do quite a bit of HP damage (though will rarely win) and many of them should retreat. Additionally, having a significant force of Horsemen allows you to pillage enemy tile improvements and threaten anything that moves more than 1 tile away from your stack. Follow up your assault with the Swords, and any major enemy fortress should fall.

To increase speed, the Workers will help build roads to funnel reinforcements from your core. Offensive fort cities built by Settlers can steal culture (and the roads they contain) for AI cities that have expanded borders. This gives you an extra tile to work with, but, as I mentioned above, it's usually only necessary against human players, allowing you to hit one of their stacks that they aren't expecting you to be able to.

To summarize, the key is balance when building your forces. Later on in the game I love to have a myriad of Fighters, Bombers, Artillery, ships, Tanks, Infantry, etc. etc. There are certainly situations when you'll want to focus on one kind of unit more than others... for example, if you're in the middle of flat land Horsemen will be more useful, whereas if you're stuck in the jungle their movement bonus will be less effective (though their retreat bonus is still very useful).

If you ever find yourself without a resource or two, you can always opt for an early attack to find some... An early and well-planned Archer rush can be a sight to behold...

[tuckson]

2 years... hmmmm, that long already? time flies ;-)

But I guess you're right. BTW, did I smell the beginning of the before mentioned FAQ here?

Nonetheless I still just don't understand how an elite archer so often looses from a standard warrior on equal ground.... (Of course things go a bit better when the archers stands on hills or mountains, but still...

Nah, maybe I SHOULD dwell a bit more on the fansites.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by tuckson
But I guess you're right. BTW, did I smell the beginning of the before mentioned FAQ here?

I know nothing about any said FAQ.

Nonetheless I still just don't understand how an elite archer so often looses from a standard warrior on equal ground.... (Of course things go a bit better when the archers stands on hills or mountains, but still...

Nah, maybe I SHOULD dwell a bit more on the fansites.

With the Archer defending, or attacking?

Defending things are pretty up in the air due to the nature of the RNG. Attacking, it should win most of the time, though it's not always assurred. I've gotten really bad streaks of luck at points in games, and gotten incredible luck at other times where my units simply don't die. Most of the time, the two balance out... it's only that people remember their BAD luck more often than their GOOD luck because the bad luck affects their plans so much more.

Early on the battles can be a lot more casualty-ridden than later on when it's easier to control when, where and how battles are fought. Early on you often just have to stick it out and launch the Sword at the elite Spear forted on a hill city. Later on you can fire immense barrages of Artillery-fire at positions and subsequently finish them off with swaths of Bombers. In my current game I destroyed 9 enemy Infantry on mountains without having to use a single combat unit. They were all just wiped out by my Artillery and Bombers.

To be honest, I kind of like it when I get streaks of bad luck in combat... it helps balance out the AI's "tactics" a bit...

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Trip

I know nothing about any said FAQ.


With the Archer defending, or attacking?

Attacking of course. Noone with common sense would use an archer for defense, right?

Originally posted by Trip
Defending things are pretty up in the air due to the nature of the RNG. Attacking, it should win most of the time, though it's not always assurred. I've gotten really bad streaks of luck at points in games, and gotten incredible luck at other times where my units simply don't die. Most of the time, the two balance out... it's only that people remember their BAD luck more often than their GOOD luck because the bad luck affects their plans so much more.

Hmmmm... Maybe that's the point. The problem is, I should not expect this kind of behavior on chieftain level. When I want a challenge, I take one or 2 levels higher. I take chieftain when I feel like having a short trip to victory. You're right it often succeeds. But sometimes, like in this game, it just wont work out.

BTW... <lack of knowledge mode on>
I did not know only artillery units could kill? I thought they only could damage to a certain level.
<lack of knowledge mode off>

[Aqualung71]

Bad RNG streaks are just a part of the game. I'm playing a game as India right now - I had 2 elite War Elephants, 6 hit points each, attack a Pikeman on a hill and both went down without retreating and didn't take a single hit point off the Pike. By my calculations, the odds of that happening are 0.0485%, or 1 in 2000 (without taking into account the odds of retreat). Still, bad luck happens and the Pike didn't last long after that...nor did the rest of the stack.

tuckson....the level at which you are playing does not affect the outcome of battles.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by tuckson
Attacking of course. Noone with common sense would use an archer for defense, right?

Sometimes the situation demands it, despite what one would desire.

Hmmmm... Maybe that's the point. The problem is, I should not expect this kind of behavior on chieftain level. When I want a challenge, I take one or 2 levels higher. I take chieftain when I feel like having a short trip to victory. You're right it often succeeds. But sometimes, like in this game, it just wont work out.

The main advantage of the lower difficulty levels is being able to build a lot more units than the AI... however, it does not affect the abilities of those units. To summarrize... some you win, some you lose.

BTW... <lack of knowledge mode on>
I did not know only artillery units could kill? I thought they only could damage to a certain level.
<lack of knowledge mode off>

Artillery can damage units down to 1 HP, but aircraft can kill units (in Conquests).

[tuckson]

Ah ... conquests. Don't have it. Don't have PTW either. Still playing original Civ3.

Paying the very same price for an expension pack as for the original game always sounds like a ripp-off to me.

Maybe I'll buy conquests and PTW when prices drop to about 5 bucks each.