My little problem with Civ3

[Syzyon]

I'm among those few people who seem to actually enjoy the game and support the corruption levels and combat and everything. But I'm kind of a realist and enjoy playing on huge maps with 16 civs. Then conquest is not an option and the playing style is a lot different than on smaller maps. The waiting time between turn is the only real problem
But I never finish a game... The reason is that either
1- You lag so far behind that you are never able to catch up again and are bullied till you die or there's no point playing anymore, or
2- You become dominant early or in the middle of the game and there's not much more fun in playing since you won't be challenged anyway...
It's really too bad that there's no way the "tide can turn" in the game like it did in history. The Middle Eastern societies were dominant in the Western Hemisphere during the Middle Ages socio-economically speaking, but were overtaken and later dominated by the European powers. This would seldom happen in Civ unless all the civs gang up on you, something you should be able to prevent if you're already dominant.
Yes, resources do appear in areas outside your control, but being dominant there's usually no problem in grabbing that territory, usually before the civilization in that area even researches the prerequisite for even seeing the resource.
I saw another thread on random events and really support this. At least some events which actually make a difference in how the "world evolves". Something you can't always control or prevent. That would make it all a little more challenging, but obviously hated by control freaks
Oh well, something for Civ4 I guess, but it would be great fun...!

[Venger]

Re: My little problem with Civ3

Originally posted by Syzyon
I'm among those few people who seem to actually enjoy the game and support the corruption levels and combat and everything. But I'm kind of a realist and enjoy playing on huge maps with 16 civs. Then conquest is not an option

Not an option? Says WHO??

1- You lag so far behind that you are never able to catch up again and are bullied till you die or there's no point playing anymore, or

Some of my most fun Civ2 games were when I got screwed on some island that could only support 8 or so cities, and I had neighbord on the nearby continents. To take that small, fledgling empire and dominate the world was very challenging and fun.

2- You become dominant early or in the middle of the game and there's not much more fun in playing since you won't be challenged anyway...

Hmmm...haven't played enough to know (still on the first game, and yes, I do put many hours in a night on it - how many of you conquered 3 large Civs on the map and have 100 cities and 150 workers to control eveyr turn, as well as a war to prosecute, HMMM?). Still, turn off the stupid diplomatic or spaceship victories - those are way too easy (or with diplomacy will backfire, leaving you with a wasted game). You want to lead the world? Sometimes you gotta crack some heads...

It's really too bad that there's no way the "tide can turn" in the game like it did in history. The Middle Eastern societies were dominant in the Western Hemisphere during the Middle Ages socio-economically speaking, but were overtaken and later dominated by the European powers. This would seldom happen in Civ unless all the civs gang up on you, something you should be able to prevent if you're already dominant.

This always seemed to happen in Civ2 - some warlike race would get an advantage early on, and become powerful, but would eventually lag behind and be overtaken technology wise, signalling their eventual demise. But in Civ3, all the civs are the same...

Yes, resources do appear in areas outside your control, but being dominant there's usually no problem in grabbing that territory, usually before the civilization in that area even researches the prerequisite for even seeing the resource.

I see...a higher difficulty level in your future...

Venger