Diffuculty comparison from II to III

[Capt Dizle]

Theseus,

I really wish I could see some depth in this game. I have tried and I just don't see it.

If I want to play for culture I just build all the buildings. It's not like you have even two paths to follow.

If I want to play rough, I just build military units. Where is the depth? How many tactics are there?

Mostly what I find is a long tedious process of moving workers and military units. Only the very begining of the game is interesting at all.

Maybe I don't get what you folks enjoy so much.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have sent them more?

Yes, the US Postal Service gives me a special bulk mail rate. Sooner or later I will get lucky.

[Kuciwalker]

f I want to play rough, I just build military units.

I can see how someone as inanely one-dimensional as you would see C3 as "one-dimensional"

[Cerbykins]

As soon as you try world spawns other than easy, middle-custom-option start points - you will realise how 'un-repetitive' it is
(Or maybe it is just me )
Example - 'so very cold (of the AI)'

Back on-topic though...

Even chieftain is not a breeze straight away...expecting a few units to conquer a Europe a bit behind in tech in now just a fuzzy dream
Expecting to leave the ai with pikeman while you have tanks is, for the best part - a fuzzy dream
And expecting the AI to be either plain peaceful or homicidal is - you guessed it - a fuzzy dream
It will continue to be a pain in the...rear ...until the day you send it to a better place or finish the game
It will start wars at the most in-opportune times for you, and make peace with neighbours when you least want it to

[Fatwreck]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Everybody is always saying how they missed the wonder movies, but most just cursed them and click past them after about the 500th time one plays.

IIRC it ws the UN that could force peace.

that´s right, but GW did it too

[vee4473]

jimmytrick, did you like civ 2?
just curious

[pedrojedi]

Let's just leave it, I think the guy just got bored of so much civ-playing - I recently passed some time bored of Civ (OH MY GOD, I'M A SINNER! ).

And yes, GW forced peace in Civ2.

[yxhuvud]

What is the momentum rush by the way?

[vmxa1]

Yes they both force peace in II, its been awhile.

[The Mad Viking]

Hi bodiki!

I just started playing CIV III. I played alot of CIV II at Deity, and did not lose to the AI.

I waited for a long time in part due to comments like JTs, rather than trying it myself.

I am still playing my first game, so while I don't know CIV III that well, the differences from II are still clear in my mind.

I chose Regent for my first game and I'm happy with that. I will win the game, although I'm currently in the middle of the pack in score.

Try to forget everything you think you know, and you will be better off. Your dogmas and precepts will hurt you.

I chose regular map continents and random- letting the computer pick my civ and the opponents. I since learned I was lucky to get the Egyptions, an easy civ to play.

I thought I had read the docs fairly well, but learned as I went along that I had not. My starting site looked awful, so I went searching for a good spot. This was a huge mistake, as it took forever to find one, so I ended up way behind- the AI civs expand more quickly and efficiently than before. Much to my chagrin, three tiles that I had thought were desert at my start location were in fact, floodplain, a fine agricultural terrain!

I had the additional misfortune of being very close to the Greeks, whose hoplites are the premier ancient defender. Then Germany and Rome allied to attack me. I was lucky to have iron, and built swordsmen, and got the wheel just in time to find one source of horses. (Same city, bad location for growth, but critical to my civ due to two strategic resources.)

I was able to hold my own against the attacks, using swordsmen in hills and mountains. I was surprised to watch AI units waltz past my units w/o attacking- no zone of control! The tide turned when I was able to induce the Greeks to ally against the Romans. It was costly, but it worked to perfection. The Romans beat themselves against the hoplites, and I was able to tire out the Germans who lost waves of horsemen and finally asked for a treaty.

At this point, I had only four cities and was basically a joke power. I knew I needed more land for resources, and despite misgivings, chose to attack the Greeks, because their cities were almost intertwined with mine. Using war chariots in large numbers with vet/elite swords, I was able to take Athens and then several more cities, and finally sued for peace, picking up two techs and gold per turn.

Since that I turned to England. Catapults are very different, and your initial reaction is they suck, but if you guard them they NEVER die, and they are cheap. Use a bunch to bombard prior to attacking.

Two-movement point units are critical, as they will usually attack and retreat before dying, living to fight another day.

At Regent I am able to maintain a very slight tech lead despite a small sized Kingdom.

Corruption and waste are much bigger problems. In Monarchy, going past 16 cities leads to huge corruption problems. Consider razing poor cities to keep the total number down.

Deserts are important sources of saltpeter, required for gunpowder. Don't disregard them, or you may be out of luck when you discover gunpowder but can't make any!

Musketeers are expensive defense only units that everyone hates. However, they can be upgraded all the way to mech inf, whereas pikes and swords can't learn to shoot guns!!!

Knights rock. Cavalry ROCKS.

Luxury resources are critically important to happiness, which in turn can lead to WLTKD, which reduces waste.

Cultural improvements are key to establishing borders, and help getting your cities to expand from 9 tiles to 21. Even obsolete Wonders generate substantial culture.

[DrSpike]

Hehe people don't feed the troll, it's what he wants the hungry little tyke.

Anyway, JT attracted abuse by overstating it, but he is essentially correct. Civ3 is harder because the gameplay was simplified in many respects to help the AI. I'm not going to take his next step and say there is no depth in Civ3, because I don't believe that is the case. However Civ2 is undeniably deeper, and all the easier for it in SP once you have mastered it.

[furrykef]

Short answer: Yes, Civ3 is much harder than Civ2.

I think Civ2's AI was a joke even on Deity. I could out-expand them easily. Yes, Civ3's game mechanics were vastly simplified to make the AI "smarter" (I like many of the simplifications, though), but I think the actual AI has improved a lot as well. There weren't that many oversimplifications from Civ2. The Civ2 AI cheated like HELL and was still pathetic! By comparison, the Civ3 AI doesn't cheat much at all, difficulty-level bonuses aside. I think there's more than some game mechanics changes to account for that.

- Kef

[MotownDennis]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe people don't feed the troll, it's what he wants the hungry little tyke.

Anyway, JT attracted abuse by overstating it, but he is essentially correct. Civ3 is harder because the gameplay was simplified in many respects to help the AI. I'm not going to take his next step and say there is no depth in Civ3, because I don't believe that is the case. However Civ2 is undeniably deeper, and all the easier for it in SP once you have mastered it.

I'm not sure I understand how a game can be both "deeper" and "easier" at the same time.

I regularly beat Civ2 at Diety level, and am an emperor/demigod player in Civ3/PTW/Conquests. Civ3 is MUCH harder than Civ2 ever was. Civ 2 was better than Civ1, and Civ3 is better than Civ2. I have confidence that Civ4 will be better than Civ3. It's the natural progression of things.

[DrSpike]

Deeper often implies easier, since the more depth the harder it is to make the AI play well. I do think the AI has improved for Civ3, as it should many years on, but JT's point that much of the increased difficulty results from simplification aimed at making it easier for the AI to keep up is, I think, a fair one, even if he does shoot himself in the foot by the way he makes it.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by MotownDennis

Civ 2 was better than Civ1, and Civ3 is better than Civ2. I have confidence that Civ4 will be better than Civ3. It's the natural progression of things.

I was all set to agree with you until I remembered Moo3.