Is it possible to play Civ3 for fun?

[CyberGnu]

GA, the thing is that I don't WANT to play like a warmonger... But the mad expansion of the AI in the beginning of the game pretty much forces me.

I do have to admit though, I never managed to do that trade trick people keep talking about... Even when I bought an advance that only one other civ has, I've never been able to recoup my costs my re-selling it to the other AI's...

Besides that, they happily build new units.

Actually, they don't, and that is part of the problem. the AI's in civ 3 plays like a human did in civ2... Two units should be enough to defend against a raid, but not against a determined attack.

I published a picture from my invasion of the chinese continent in another thread... His cities were all size 16+, and in no city did he have more than three defenders. In the cities with three defenders, at least one of them was a spearman... The power history graph looks nice... the chinese has the same power as me for roughly 1500 years, and then in the span of four turns he is gone... Would have been three, but he had a pathetic little outpost built on a ONE TILE island that I had to take by shore bombardment and marines...

Or I could have dragged it out one more turn and requested it when he was down to two cities for a peace treaty, which is the usual way to deal with these AI outposts.

[Ghengis Brom]

I beg to differ

Originally posted by Chevin
Just my personal opinion on this topic from a warmongers point of view. !!!please remember this is a warmongers point of view and is not the popular point of view or you might take it is a flame!!!


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.

Since long bloody wars are the "FUN" for a warmonger, then I do agree it is not possible to play this game and have fun. You can alter your tactics of course. Fight shorter goal based wars. Hit your target cities hard and fast and then plead for peace. But this isn't how a warmonger would do it.

It was easier to be bloodthirsty in Civ II.

I've found myself going to war a lot earlier in CivIII then in CivII. If for nothing else but to stop the damn AI from expanding right up to my front door. I do agree with being able to be more bloodthirsty in CivII but I kind of like the fact that you really have to plan your battles in CivIII.

Me at work ------>

[Pingu]

Re: Is it possible to play Civ3 for fun?

Tiny map, playing with the Babylonians. Random settings apart from raging barbarians. My tribe settle down in a lush area, a good place to build a kingdom, Babylon is born.
Now here is the point of this little game, I wanted to try a tiny map (usually play standard) and see if I could win by the space race, with all other winning conditions possible (If I can then try another civ/ or same higher level and beat the date).

Everything is going to plan, another city founded and in another lush area. When I meet the persians, we exchange pleasantries and science and settle down for a peaceful coexistance.
When my Longbowman who found the persians and enroute picked up some invaluble combat experience decided to have a closer look at the persians, they where infuriated and demanded that we withdraw, my cocky longbowman decided to attack and suddenly we had control of the city, the city was razed and we rejoiced at the decimation of the persians.
Unfortunately what I thought was their only city wasn't and I had to vear off expansion and commit to war! Needless to say the persians were wiped out and I suddenly found myself on a large Island (on a small map) all alone.

We founded city after city and the only place not colonized was a small jungle to the west and a desert in the south-east. We found Iron, gold, horses, ideas were being discovered quicker than we could build upon them, it was a Golden Age.
I met with my advisors and it was decided the jungle would serve as a training ground for my military and the desert would be a lure to another civilization where we would allow a trading post to be set up and subsume it into our empire. The people were Happy.
Bob was sent into the jungle to hunt for the natives, time and time again he despatched them and raided their camps and returned to the mountain pass where his lookout station was.

The Zulus wanted to set up a trading post in the dessert, I naively allowed them, thinking I was the smarter, after all they were a rather uncouth lot. I built the Pyramids, the Forbidden Palace was built, the Colussus all was well
The Zulus had no access to my Kingdom, so decided to send a Galley around the coast. I warned them to leave my coastal towns, he would comply, but lo he just sailed on. Now I was getting annoyed, this would be the last time I warned him, he apologized and said he would leave. And then I heard Zulus had been seen around Akkud. I sent a sharply worded letter to tell them to withdraw or else....

They said "War It Is". The nerve. And before I knew It another party landed and suddenly Akkud fell and they razed it to the ground. I was furious.

POINT 1. How many people out there would RELOAD at this point!!

I suddenly cancelled projects that were meant to please my citizens and mobilized for war, the Iron we found ages ago was used to create a new type of warrior, we were going to drive the Zulus from out shores. But we were slow and lost many of our men. The Zulus were using the Trading Post as a staging post, galleys of fierce warriors were unloaded on our shores. Another of our cities was taken but this time their warriors kept it to taunt us, after destroying our monuments.
After a long struggle, and many years, we managed it. But our pride had been dented. I met with our advisors and it was decided to try and get peace with the Zulus until we had trained our men in the Art Of War. But we would destroy them, every last one of them and raze their cities to the ground.

Just as the council broke up a thunderous boom could be heard, the ground shook. We looked towards the sound, which was coming from the darkness of the Jungle. Bob our bravest warrior looked on in dismay, an army of barbarians mounted on horses was bearing down on Babylon, but first must pass through Bob.

He despatched the first, then the second, the third, the fourth, he was tiring and coated in blood, the Fifth he managed as well but the sixth finally killed him. The sound of hooves continued, and army of 34 mounted barbarians were at the gates of Babylon!

POINT 2. How many people out there would RELOAD at this point!!

To me Civilization is not about winning but of enjoying myself. I wonder how many people who play on deity reload back to save games.

I stopped the game at this point. Tomorrow I will load it up and see what 34 horsemen will do to my cities, can I damage the Zulus (I must have my revenge) and still get my people to the stars. I don't care if I lose but I will have fun trying new ideas, without micromanaging everything.

[Chronus]

The sound of hooves continued, and army of 34 mounted barbarians were at the gates of Babylon!

34 barbarians?!! You must be joking! Are you saying 34 INDIVIDUAL BARBARIAN UNITS?? This is awesome! Please tell me what happens!

POINT 2. How many people out there would RELOAD at this point!!

To me Civilization is not about winning but of enjoying myself. I wonder how many people who play on deity reload back to save games.

Reload as in to get a different result?? You'd have to be insane to pass up an opportunity like this!

I never reload games, even after frustrating circumstances. Doing so can kill the enjoyment IMOHO. And I agree . . . winning is not the enjoyable part as far as I'm concerned.

[Sytass]

Originally posted by 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

If you play the major powers, yes. But try to struggle free from Denmark as Holstein (in the Improved Grand Campaign), as Milan, try to unite Italy, as Algiers try to expand your influence against the mighty Ottoman Empire.

I agree that the default powers (Portugal, England, France, Austria, Spain, Turks, etc.) are too easy to play. That's why I only played 2 or 3 Grand Campaigns with them.

[G.A]

1) Maintaining the science lead. Hmmm, I never said anything like that. If you aren`t aggressive you will usually get it only in the late industrial age. Usually.

Again usually, this is the period, when everyone has already discovered Nationalism, and becomes MPP mad. You may then use it to keep all the AI civs at war vs each other for as long as possible. Well, or have a good luck of that happening

In the 6 cities game I won Space Race in the end with nobody else even trying to build ship parts (Regent btw), cause since discovery of Nationalism no AI civ was at peace with everyone until the very end, when only 2 of them left standing. So, keeping AI at war is another trick to maintain science, and also is a fun part

2) What I consider fun approach.
(To get this slightly back to topic )

As for me, fun approach is totally ignoring all those REXs, IFEs etc, which in fact give you the keys to boring and repetitive games. Yes, you could occasionally win on Deity with that, and have a brag, but that`s no fun. I never actually started a Deity game even
Also, if one strategy was at some point a huge success, I`ll try to go the other way in the next games.
And Warlord seems to be the best level for this kind of fun approach - when the AI development speed will about match your own, and you won`t find the AI cities all over your shores while you still only build your 3rd settler, having started alone on an island

All the levels above seem just like a mad, nervous and somewhat repetitive rush to accomplish certain preset goals, of which you wouldn`t really know happen you really to be the leader of a developing civilization (eg rushing to discover republic/get to Middle Ages etc).

[Pingu]

Originally posted by Chronus



34 barbarians?!! You must be joking! Are you saying 34 INDIVIDUAL BARBARIAN UNITS?? This is awesome! Please tell me what happens!

They thundered towards Babylon, and engaged my heroic defenders. The first wave was only just beaten by my steadfast defenders ( which had to retire to the barracks for medical assistance) , then came the second wave , but now my defenders were not frightened and beat the second wave, more barbarian horsemen came out of the jungle.
We lost count of the slaughter, but finally after many years the barbarians were no more.
The Zulus pressed for peace, after setting up the Trading post again, but we removed them from the island and tried an unsuccesful attack on their homeland.
I as a leader have made many mistakes. I must now prepare my people for peace, while building up a significant army to raze the zulu cities until they have tasted our wrath.

Im not sure why there were so many barbarian units (50-60) in the end, was it because I destroyed their camps but then left the area unseen time and time again, did this trigger something?

[magimix]

Wow Pingu, you sound like you are having a *whale* of a time! And so am I now. You know, when I started playing this game I found myself getting very frustrated and agreeing with a lot of the complaints (dodgy combat, unfairly fast AI expansion, raw deals in trade and the like). Then I realised of course that I was trying to play Civ III like I played Civ II, so I was getting spanked constantly.

So I hid the game away and read the Apolyton strategy threads for a few days. And may I say it's transformed my game! I love the fact that when I was rich but not technically advanced I was able to concentrate on strategically important techs, then *trade* to get the others. I love the way I had to expand just so, and wage some strategic comabt in order to secure resources I knew would give me the edge later in the game. I love the way Civ III rewards good city management with high culture (my fave bit about the game).

In one game I was getting along okay (or so I thought) with the Russians when they launched a sneak attack against me by deploying multiple combined forces against five of my cities all in the same turn (WOAH!). I loved that too, because I learnt that, unlike in Civ II, you can't just build one or two warriors and expect them to repell all invaders until the end of the game.

I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that peoples complaints or criticism are unjustified. But if you are new to the game and are finding it frustrating or not fun, don't despair - read the forums avidly and transform your game
:-)

There are a few rough edges, but to be blunt, with some application they can all be dealt with.

[raiseupx]

It was easier to be bloodthirsty in Civ II.

to me easier means more boring