Tweet
I just played out a game (normal sized map, regent, 8 Civs, as Egypt) in which I had no iron, no horses, and no rubber! Won a diplomatic victory nonetheless tho, and I have to say that it was one of the MOST interesting games I've ever played, precisely because I lacked critical resources!
Of course it can be done. You just have to adapt your style. Knowing you lack certain key resources, you're not going to go pick a fight once your rivals get ironworking. If you do....you're nuts!
Ahhhh, and I can hear it now....But wait! You say....This is Civ....you know...by the numbers:
1) Expand till you box the AI in
2) Build the best units you can make
3) Overrun the AI
4) Repeat till you rule the world
And it's true. In Civ2, the game was pretty much rote and by the numbers.
I think the posts we're seeing here bear out the fact that the truisms of Civ2 *do not* hold much water in Civ3. And, as I read the posts here, I understood....and could very much relate to the sometimes frustration players feel, BUT....I also get the distinct impression that they're trying to play their games in the same mindset and with the same basic stratagies that worked so well for them in Civ2. And why not? It's what's comfortable and familiar, and it's the way they WANT to play.
Nevermind the fact that if that were always true....if you really could just open the box, play just like you played in Civ2 and kick the crap out of the AI, everybody on this board would be howling that Civ3 was too easy, totally sucked, was too much like Civ2, etc. and so forth. C'mon guys....deep down you KNOW that's true!
In any case, would you not agree that winning such a game sans critical resources represents an exquisite challenge that is simply heads and shoulders above anything Civ2 could ever deliver, yes?
How much sweeter is the ultimate victory, knowing that you did it....you not only survived, but bested your rivals while dealing with critical shortages in strategic resources!?
But....I am admittedly biased....I love it....
-=Vel=-
Of course it can be done. You just have to adapt your style. Knowing you lack certain key resources, you're not going to go pick a fight once your rivals get ironworking. If you do....you're nuts!
Ahhhh, and I can hear it now....But wait! You say....This is Civ....you know...by the numbers:
1) Expand till you box the AI in
2) Build the best units you can make
3) Overrun the AI
4) Repeat till you rule the world
And it's true. In Civ2, the game was pretty much rote and by the numbers.
I think the posts we're seeing here bear out the fact that the truisms of Civ2 *do not* hold much water in Civ3. And, as I read the posts here, I understood....and could very much relate to the sometimes frustration players feel, BUT....I also get the distinct impression that they're trying to play their games in the same mindset and with the same basic stratagies that worked so well for them in Civ2. And why not? It's what's comfortable and familiar, and it's the way they WANT to play.
Nevermind the fact that if that were always true....if you really could just open the box, play just like you played in Civ2 and kick the crap out of the AI, everybody on this board would be howling that Civ3 was too easy, totally sucked, was too much like Civ2, etc. and so forth. C'mon guys....deep down you KNOW that's true!
In any case, would you not agree that winning such a game sans critical resources represents an exquisite challenge that is simply heads and shoulders above anything Civ2 could ever deliver, yes?
How much sweeter is the ultimate victory, knowing that you did it....you not only survived, but bested your rivals while dealing with critical shortages in strategic resources!?
But....I am admittedly biased....I love it....
-=Vel=-
Comment