I'm giving up Civilization. Here's why

[ErikM]

Originally posted by okblacke
I can't think of a single game that isn't reducible to "reading forums and figuring out the right way to play"

I do not quite agree.

Example: Heroes of Might & Magic series. I did not care much for HOMM IV, so let's take HOMM III as an example.

Sure, there are some tactical tricks you can either read on the forums or figure out soon enough on your own. Like Logistics being the best skill and Earth Magic being the best magic school for your heroes to learn.

But it does not mean at all that knowing this is enough to win any scenario. Different towns, different maps, and different heroes all will require different strategies. Some of the more difficult scenarios you really had to solve as a chess puzzle. Also HOMM III appeals to wide audience without making the game complicated - you can do easier scenarios without knowing much at all, but to win harder maps you really need to sweat it out - so just pick whatever rocks your boat... And since the game was easy enough to customize, there is no shortage of user-created scenarios which will provide you with virtually every challenge level imaginable.

In a sense, HOMM III is a near-perfect design as it is very easy to learn but difficult to master. And you don't have to master it - just choose the maps that you feel are appropriate for your skill level and you will have fun...

This, regretfully, does not quite apply to Civ III. It is more difficult to learn than HMM but there is only so much you can learn - once you know a couple of tricks, there is hardly any novelty at all.

Europa Universalis is another example. Unfortunately, unlike HOMM, EU is rather difficult to learn. But again, there are some useful things you can learn on the forums but you simply cannot play England the same way as France or Austria or Russia - they all require unique strategies. And again, you don't need to know the game inside out in order to enjoy/stop enjoying it - just choose the right country for your skill level. France is very easy, Denmark is more difficult, German minors are hard, and Tibet is for pros.

In other words, best games indeed make you adapt to the game situation and do not have any single "killer strategy" that works no matter what. That is basically what distinguishes a great game from a mediocre one.
In Civ III regretfully the basic gameplay is virtually the same. By the medieval era, it is almost exactly the same. The only challenge is during an ancient era and it basically boils down to a single strategic decision "when do I go to war".

Now, if we compare Civ II/Civ III. Civ II is a bit of a special case. Due to generally poor AI it was easy enough to win using the same bag of tricks. However, it was also possible to win using completely different set of tricks and possibly much faster and that is what made Civ II so exciting... Before I read these forums I thought that I play Civ well enough. Than I read some accounts of people winning with a single city or launching a spaceship in 300AD - it was a real eye-opener... When I tried to get an early AC landing I eventually succeeded with something like a 800AD launch - nowhere near as good as best players here, but it was really, really hard. That was the best part of Civ II - you can set yourself a challenge and try to accomplish it... Who cares about AI - you basically competed against yourself (and best Poly' players). That's what is lacking in Civ III...

[SirOsis]

I disagree that the only challenge is when to go to war in the ancient age.

I actually read the forums and pick up tips and hints but I would not say that Civ 3 gameplay needs to be so cut and dry. I think there is a tendancy to read forum threads and believe there is only one "right" way to play the game. This is not true.

Each civilization, opponents, and map make for a different game each time. You have choices to make in the ancient age certainly but I do not find myself going after the same techs everytime or going to war. The lay of the land dictates much of the strategy as does diplomacy. I find myself looking for ways to build off my civilization's traits and resources available.

The game also develops based on how I feel a leader should act in certain situations. Under despotism I feel no shame in whipping the hell out of my citizens. I'm a despot! Give 'em the whip to work faster.

There are also more governments than Republic. I realize this was the preferred govt for many players. Why not adjust your playstyle toward something like Feudalism?

It is easy to get into a rut and do the same thing over and over again because that is how you won the game in the past. Try something new then. You'll be surprised at the gameplay options that are available.

[eewolf]

this turned into a pretty good thread.

there is much to comment on here but there is one thing in particular that has always confused me...

But even in the ancient era, the game is very linear. There are some cute tactical tricks that one has to learn to compete at higher levels, like settler farms and corruption management but otherwise what is it so deeply strategic about the early game? There are no combined arms or anything, it is just a war of luck and attrition. If you have 6-8 swordsman against 4 spears, you'll probably win a siege otherwise you probably won't. That's all there is to strategy

this is true. and it would be a problem if we could not think outside the box (this is the problem with the ai). just because you can do something does not mean you must. the game can be won in a linear fashion but only if you choose that route.

it can be difficult to prevent this because once something is learned, we have a tendency to repeat it. so i usually make pre-game rules for my epic games. they can be anything.

examples:

• no slaves workers, must add to cities or give them back
• warmonger: must wage wars relentlessly
• peaceful: must make peace as soon as possible
• no wonders or limited wonders
• no clearing forests or jungle

i have used many more than this. these rules do not change the game mechanics. they force me to change my play style. for me, it creates new pathways in the game. it is fun.

i once played a game as the vikings with rules:
arch map
must destroy anyone on my island (war at once!)
must not expand beyond islands close to mine
must raze all captured cities
must attack from the sea after invention
must build military improvements first
no temples!!!
no libraries until middle ages
no universities until industrial
all victories on but only conquest for human

i played on regent and it was difficult. i won in the late industrial age with a marine blitz. the game was like no other game i had played.

so, in the quote above, you can put together a large stack of swords or horsemen and roll over ai cities. but not if you have a self-imposed rule of only stacks of 4 of the same type of attack/defender unit and maybe only 6 bombard units. and no more than 2 or 3 stacks per attack force. the sky is the limit on setting up battle rules.

if settler pumps make the rex phase too predictable, don't use them. or limit yourself to building fewer cities.

by imposing these "limitations" on yourself, you actually open up more of the game to yourself.

that said, it would be nice if the ai could challenge all players at all levels with no bonuses. its not going to happen. i believe firaxis did a very good job with the ai in a very complex game. and i hope to see better in civ4. but that is for another thread.

summed up: no one knew all the "tricks" to easily beating the ai when civ3 vanilla was released. these things were learned. meanwhile the ai learned zip, zero, nada. by thinking up new creative restrictions on your own game (even beyond what the editor can do), you will find yourself using units and strategies you never did before. and it does not matter which level you are on, use your "comfort" level, "struggle" level or your "kicksomeass" level.

eewolf

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by ErikM
However, it was also possible to win using completely different set of tricks and possibly much faster and that is what made Civ II so exciting... Before I read these forums I thought that I play Civ well enough. Than I read some accounts of people winning with a single city or launching a spaceship in 300AD - it was a real eye-opener... When I tried to get an early AC landing I eventually succeeded with something like a 800AD launch - nowhere near as good as best players here, but it was really, really hard. That was the best part of Civ II - you can set yourself a challenge and try to accomplish it... Who cares about AI - you basically competed against yourself (and best Poly' players). That's what is lacking in Civ III...

Why did you pick an example that you can do in Civ3? If anything, in civ3 the launch would be more challenging due to resources and the stronger AI.

And, if anything, due to the greater variety of victory conditions, I'd say there are more ways of challenging yourself. OCC spaceship, OCC culture (easiest of the bunch) OCC Conquest, OCC Diplomatic, 5CC iterations of each as well if those are too difficult.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Why did you pick an example that you can do in Civ3? If anything, in civ3 the launch would be more challenging due to resources and the stronger AI.

And, if anything, due to the greater variety of victory conditions, I'd say there are more ways of challenging yourself. OCC spaceship, OCC culture (easiest of the bunch) OCC Conquest, OCC Diplomatic, 5CC iterations of each as well if those are too difficult.

They are less exciting though... In Civ II you could really build one hell of a city that could rival an entire civ. In Civ III it is more of a "Don't kill me I'm just a piano player" challenge. If you somehow manage that and AI does not achieve domination (which is not entirely under player's control) than I guess you can do either shaceship, diplo, or culture. OCC conquest seems hopeless to me - how do you prevent AI from settling?

Same with the space race... On emperor+ it is hard to research first techs faster than at the minimum rate. While you can keep up with the AI due to GL or shrewd trading, the rate of technological advancement is basically determined by the AIs rather than by player's efforts. And due to 4-turn cap on research times, there isn't anything spectacular you can do later on to speed up AC launch.

So OCC is a challenge, yes, but I think that its feasibility is largely outside player's control. Was it even done on deity?

[okblacke]

Originally posted by ErikM
Example: Heroes of Might & Magic series. I did not care much for HOMM IV, so let's take HOMM III as an example.

Big HoMM fan here, all three. (Not IV, either.)

And it's almost exactly the same as Civ as far as being reducible, except that there's really no "epic game", random map generators not really cutting it.

Yes, HoMM scenarios often have a puzzle-like aspect to them. So do Civ scenarios. And it's also easily customizable with a wealth of scenarios. They're probably less puzzle-oriented than HoMM, but that's more a community-play-style difference than a mechanical difference.

Take an even-keeled HoMM map, though, and you have specific formulae that can be applied, depending on what town-type you are and what town-type you're fighting.HOMM's basic strategy is/was put all your most powerful troops into a killer stack, use that to conquer towns, and hero-chain reinforcements to it as they arrive. A multiplayer game ends the first time two of these killer stack meets: The side that loses has lost the game.

In a sense, HOMM III is a near-perfect design as it is very easy to learn but difficult to master. And you don't have to master it - just choose the maps that you feel are appropriate for your skill level and you will have fun

The play experience in HoMM maps exactly to Civ III: You can play it with whatever style suits you at a low level, or you can micromanage your heros so that they chain perfectly, and finish at the fastest speed.

As for HOMM III being near-perfect "in design", it's flawed (according to the developers and I agree) by the too-similar troops between towns. There were some great combos (liches and vamps, for exaple) but not nearly enough.

This, regretfully, does not quite apply to Civ III. It is more difficult to learn than HMM but there is only so much you can learn - once you know a couple of tricks, there is hardly any novelty at all.

A play-style issue, frankly. If people wanted to create puzzle-oriented scenarios like those in HOMM, they certainly could. The Civ community prefers more open strategies, though.

EU has a built-in scenario called "Europe". :-)

The only challenge is during an ancient era and it basically boils down to a single strategic decision "when do I go to war".

Well, I submit that's the game experience you've cultivated. I've gone entire games of Civ without going to war. And I almost never go to war in the Ancient Era, or if i do, it's not very long or important.

Actually, until Conqeusts I seldom had combat-oriented games. Even with Conqeusts, I fight limited wars for resources--though I throw in the occasional military game to expand my own repertoire.

That was the best part of Civ II - you can set yourself a challenge and try to accomplish it... Who cares about AI - you basically competed against yourself (and best Poly' players). That's what is lacking in Civ III...

How is that lacking in Civ III?

[ok]

[Exquisitor]

I can think of one good reason to quit Civ. It's become an addiction! I've tried to quit Civ2 several times and finally made it, then comes along Civ3. I quit that after a long bout because of the corruption issue and because of the incessant order giving for hundreds of units. Now, I've got to quit because it's interfering with my life! Aaagh! Now that's a good reason. Quick send me to Civ3 Anonymous.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Crimson Sunrise
There's a lot of things I like about Civ3 - culture, unique units, civilization traits, resources.

These are the superficial things that are easy to market to people who have never played the game before. This is more likely to generate more new customers and this is what you'll see more of in Civ4.

But there are also things I don't like about Civ3 - most notably the trade system. The computer also cheats in my opinion, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

They are not concerned about making the best game ever. They will not spend a lot of time to improve the trade system or the AI. This is what people on the fansites want, but these fans are only a small percentage of people who purchase the game. I'll bet 90% of people who buy these games never visit a fansite and play it unpatched.

[vmxa1]

MP game of Homm3 in current CGW mag. Now this thread, time to get in another run. I did play Homm2 a few weeks ago.

I agree that the designers need to not ove look the large number of players that never visit a fansite and seldom DL patches.

[Sovereign]

Hi again... two questions OT...

1. What does OCC mean or stand for?

2. Are HOMM and Europa Univeralis any good? Any good websites for me to check these games out, in case I want to buy them?

Back On Topic...

For me, the hardest part of Civ 2 was losing. No matter what I did, I would always destroy the AI. A small island nation (me) kills a Russia or USA sized nation (AI). That happened more often than I can remember.

The hardest part of Civ3... actually two hardest parts. Trying to keep AI on good terms so they would trade stuff with me (especially luxuries and resources)... and 2nd, those difficulty levels of Emperor and above.

In my experience, Civ2 AI still sucked at Emperor and Deity levels, and I was able to win far more often than on Civ3's Emperor and Deity levels.

I'm glad I don't know many Civ3 tricks, even after getting it way back in 2001. If I knew all the tricks, then Civ3 would get boring fast for me.

I just can't stick to personal limitations, since I always get tempted to make exceptions, then my exceptions become too many, then the limitations go out the window.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Sovereign
Hi again... two questions OT...

1. What does OCC mean or stand for?

2. Are HOMM and Europa Univeralis any good? Any good websites for me to check these games out, in case I want to buy them?

One City Challenge. Playing with one city the entire game.

eu-paradox forums

[okblacke]

Originally posted by bfg9000
They will not spend a lot of time to improve the trade system or the AI.

They clearly invested a lot in improving the AI for Civ III. Yes, it's weak. All AI is weak. Civ III is hands down the best AI in the series.

The trade system in Civ III is markedly clearer than the murky caravan system used in Civ II, and I don't believe that this was a minor investment, either. (It also required beefing up the AI.)

Originally posted by bfg9000
They are not concerned about making the best game ever.

Ooh. Cynical.

What you're suggesting is that a group of people is going to work overtime for two years, and probably devote six full months of their lives--at least the last six months before a product release tend to be intense, to say the least--to turning out a half-assed product.

I guess that means computer and video games have arrived as an art form: We have people decrying the "sell outs" and deriding product "for the masses" instead of going for that elusive trait: "quality".

Unfortunately, among a lot of Civ fans, quality means "do what I want or you suck!" (This is not directed at you, personally, just a sentiment I've seen amongst various so-called Civ fans.)

Originally posted by vmxa1
MP game of Homm3 in current CGW mag. Now this thread, time to get in another run. I did play Homm2 a few weeks ago.

Where? I just read that and didn't notice anything.

[ok]

[Sovereign]

Thanks, Asleepathewheel.

[vmxa1]

http://dynamic3.gamespy.com/~homm/index.php?page=features/interviews/fabricecambounet.htm

Heroes III and all Might and Magic really.

Better yet, just buy Heroes. GoneGold has a list of games and links for them if you want more places.

[hewhocaves]

I actually don't think I've ever finished a game of C3. I'ts either beed destruction in 20 turns or being ridiculously far ahead of the pack by the industrial age. The one game that I did want to finish I lost in an OS crash. In that game there were two continets, a large one for me and a med. one for the germans. When I stopped playing it I had captured everything offshore of the germ. continent and was preparing for that massive invasion that everyone knew was coming. It was essentially just a matter of time.

I play all my games without any victory qualifications. I think it's silly that the world 'ends' simply because someone makes it to AC, wins the UN, etc.. And civs don't exist simply to destroy other civs. Ideally, I'd like to see that aspect of the game made a little more realistic, and maybe see some cooperation between civs, possibly to share wonders (after all, we're not building the ISS ourselves, are we?). To counter that, I would like to see a little more emphasis placed on treaties and pacts as well - both for the benefits of keeping these treaties and as vendettas for having yours broken (i.e. being backstabbed). And there ought to be some way to issue an 'iron-clad' treaty. I find that the AI is perfectly willing to backstab even the most 'sincere' pact. I like to play a nice quiet game, you see. I go to war mostly when I have to, rather than when it's conveneint (although I do do the latter, knowing that the AI has no problems doing it too). There's a bunch of other things that irk me in the game, but that's the big one.

Regarding EU and EU2, I thoroughly enjoyed those games, but was very frustrated by the lack of good documentation for them. Ususally when I played it was as Poland, and it was never very difficult to mop up eastern Europe and push south into the middle east and asia. My biggest complaint with EU2 was the 'historical' things; those pop-up bars that came up no matter what you were doing (essentially). Maybe it was just Poland, but the way the game was structured, I was funneled down a path to destrustion. After ahile I just deleted the whole tree in my civ, then the game played much better

i also thought that Medieval: Total War was an excellent addition, particuarly the ability to do tactical battles yourself. If there was ever a synthesis made of Civ3 and Medieval total War, I'd be in heaven. And while we're at it, I still miss that old SSI game "Medeival Lords".

Never played HOMM, the last MM game I played was MM. 50 gold dragons = instant level gain, lol.

my 2 cents :-)

john