Is it possible to play Civ3 for fun?

[Sytass]

Yes, indeed great support. I remember (before the US release) I had problems with EU after a certain patch, causing the game to not run any more on my then old machine. Paradox went to great lengths fixing this problem for me.

Not to mention what permissions they gave for the ingenious "Improved Great Campaign" patch.

Certainly a rolemodel for other companies. And I cannot wait to get my hands on EU2.

[wotan321]

ya gotta go to war sometime...

Chevin states:

I think Civ III is horribly complex and decidedly antiwar. Infact it seems Civ III has been designed to deter players from war/conqure tactics. The war wearines and corruption make long protracted wars impossible.

Thats a good point, its certainly not set up for warring like in Civ2. But really, in Civ2, you were at war the last 2/3 of the game in every game....

I have found you must plan out your battles better in Civ3. You get to Democracy then build up this huge force. You plan out where you want to go and what you want to do. You move forces into position. Diplomacy sets up your target.... then whammo! You gotta attack with overwhelming numbers and get the job done quickly. You take the 2 or 3 IMPORTANT cities or locales, then squeeze some tribute out of your foe to get peace, dig in and get ready to do it again later after the war weariness dies down, your units heal, and you plan out the next phase.... its more complicated sure.... but also more fun....

...and as for Civ3 discouraging all war... the fact you must win a battle with an army to get a couple wonders shows that you MUST fight sometime. In Civ3, if you want to be a warmonger... you gotta be a crafty warmonger....

[Rosacrux]

War can be fun

In Civ2 I used to be a peaceful builder and I even have dig into the complex strategies (ICS mostly - but that ain't that "complex" ) so I could win on deity.

Well, now I am older (haven't actually played Civ2 for a period of almost three years) I have a wife and my job is becoming more and more demanding, so I really don't have the time and incentive to dive into the deeper aspects of any game (I barely manage to play 12-16 hours a week, damned ).

So, I am not going to try deity (or even emperor) for a long time. I have won my first two games in Regent and now I am trying on the new improved huge world map in Monarch. That's gonna be a looooong game

As for War in Civ3, well... here are my 2 cents:

wotan321 hits bullseye with his post. That's precisely what this game is all about. You can't just go out and conquer everything and everybody (like you could do in Civ2) you have to fight with some specific goals in mind, just as - surprise, surprise - in the real world.

Wether it is that last depot of coal on the continent, or those good placed cities on the shore, or the necessity to reduce a civs power so you can compete in equal (or unequal in your favour ) terms with it in the future, you have to set specific goals and concentrate your efforts into accomplishing those.

You can't just amasse a horde of tanks and wreack havoc on everybody-everything, without worrying what comes next, it requires thinking, planning ahead, good organizing and some strategy to get what you want.

Total domination is not out of question (well, it is out of question in huge maps ) but it's just sooo hard now. It takes time, planning, resting periods and also some true human values as cunning, greed and backstabbing.

True human values, as you can tell

If I didn't like to get into that kind of trouble... well, I'd go for some good'ole "click-fest-RTS" - but I am not really in a mood for those.

[TheDarkside]

Civ3

Whats up with those equations and how do they help anything? SO I use limits and derivatives to figure out my odds in winning the lotto, does that mean I'm gonna win it now? Civ3 is fun because it's simple to play, easy to get into- sometimes hard to exit! If you have basic common sense, you will do fine in Civ3. Just dont venture into the realm of deity unless you want to deal with game mechanics, like other paople said, which is BORING. It's only one notch above playing a computer in Tic-Tac-Toe.

EU2

But until Civ3 comes out with a patch to fix airpower, I'm playing this game! This game was released 2 weeks ago in my area, and last week the first patch came out! Talk about a dedicated development team! This patch wasn't necessary to play either, sort of how this Civ3 patch I'm waiting for is. EU2 does have a high learning curve but I think it's replayability beats Civ3, why? Well because Civ3's modding support is worse then the original Civ, while EU2's modding support is fantastic. All the country data, province data, leader data- everything is easily accessible via semi-colon delimmited database files and text files. Meanwhile Civ3 may have a nice looking editor, it's usefulness dosent go far at all- most of it is merely editting a simple flag to turn things on/off!

[G.A]

Airpower hmmm... how come I just win every time before they even think about building bombers?

Probably cause I`m playing for fun too. Also I intentionally try to NEVER do what I did in previous game. This means absolutely no set strats

Now I`m near the end of a game, in which I have 6 cities, and a big science lead

But no time to finish the SS. Only UN. So, unlike Civ2, it`s 1960, and I still don`t know if I will win!

[G.A]

Oh, and a war in Civ3 is much more fun than in Civ2. In Civ2 all wars were boring and one-sided - just swarm them. Here you need some long term strategy in them...

[Rasbelin]

I just don't get the point. Why wouldn't it be impossible to play Civ III for fun? At least that's why I'm doing that. Or is someone geting paid for doing that (expect the guys on Firaxis and review makers)?

[Baloo]

Yeah, EU/EU2: Historical Empire Simulator. Civ/Civ2/Civ3 : Empire Simulator, by my own discretion.

[CyberGnu]

G.A., how do you figure?

The weak AI, the (relative to civ2) weaker defenders, the unwillingness of the AI to upgrade his old spearmen to mech. inf., the diplomacy, the use of combat settlers... It all makes it easier to defeat the AI in Civ 3 than in Civ2.

Sure, a long term WW1 war is a lot harder now, but you don't have to do it anymore, since the AI is happy to sue for peace when you take half his empire in one turn...

Baloo, et al.: I was a beta tester for EU, and I think we betatested the game for over a year... Going through at least 30 revisions. Compare to civ3, which was betatested for at most five minutes.

[knott]

My problem with EU was that it was only one possible way to play it. And it was a way to easy of course But if Peter Englund liked it, i like it

[Allemand]

My problem with EU2 is they don't tell you all the rules, so I waste too much time trying to do something that's not possible. Civ3 is much better in this respect. The two manuals give you everything you need to know to play the game.

Civ3 is fun at the first two levels (and I like to play on a huge map). At Regent level it gets much tougher and the levels above that require you to endure a lot of pain, even though you find ways to win.

I think military domination on a huge map is possible, especially in the mid-game period, but don't expect faraway cities to provide much for you because corruption is too high. Usually, the warmonger will be better off taking just a few cities for bases in each area, and razing the others. After the AI gets railroads and tanks, you're better off to make peace or just fight limited wars.

The game is not as much fun for people who like to sit back and build an empire, without fighting a war until late in the game. I did this in Civ II, with very good results. In Civ3, you will not be able to stay far ahead in research, and sooner or later the AI will force you into a war.

[G.A]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
G.A., how do you figure?

The weak AI, the (relative to civ2) weaker defenders, the unwillingness of the AI to upgrade his old spearmen to mech. inf., the diplomacy, the use of combat settlers... It all makes it easier to defeat the AI in Civ 3 than in Civ2.

Sure, a long term WW1 war is a lot harder now, but you don't have to do it anymore, since the AI is happy to sue for peace when you take half his empire in one turn...

Taking half his empire in one turn... Could be easy for a warmongerish player, but what if I don`t upgrate my units until the enemy is at the gate too?

Besides that, they happily build new units.

And I figure, as a war has different objectives now. In Civ 2 you`d go to war to destroy only. Now there is a variety of reasons, and destroying the enemy completely is not always the best option.

[G.A]

Originally posted by Allemand
The game is not as much fun for people who like to sit back and build an empire, without fighting a war until late in the game. I did this in Civ II, with very good results. In Civ3, you will not be able to stay far ahead in research, and sooner or later the AI will force you into a war.

As such a player, I have to disagree totally.
Money can buy you the science lead. Have I already mentioned my current game with 6 cities (one of them 1-shielder on the other edge of the map), a huge science lead, and AIs fighting each other for 100 years, and never trying to touch me (except occasional MPP offers, but I`m not stupid ). Only one downside in this - in that war they destroyed all their roads, and thus they can`t sell me coal, which they happily did before

[CyberGnu]

Allemand: Hear, Hear!

[Allemand]

G.A., I disagree with your disagreement (is this possible?).

My experience is that in the late game (after 1800) the AI civs will always be able to trade techs and catch up with your early tech lead, no matter how far ahead you got. You may be able to stay one or two techs ahead, but that's it.

We may be playing different games, though. I turn off diplomatic and space ship victory, and always play a huge map.

I've noticed the AI never seems to upgrade units, which could be a major disadvantage in a war of attrition. I always iqnore their outdated ships, just destroying the more modern ones. Their older ships don't do enough damage to worry about, and they must cost them something to maintain, right?