The lack of "strategic depth" in Civ3

[Libertarian]

The AI is the most superior attribute of the game. Clumsy design, and not a deficient AI, is the cause of the shallow strategy paradigm in Civ3.

[Zoid]

The strategic depth in Civ3 is staggering, you can choose TWO ways. Either you peacefully expand until the corruption breaks you OR you can go on the warpath and conquer the world, but then you have to raze all the cities that doesn´t lie in the direct vicinity of you palace or forbidden palace. Which on a huge map is about 80% of the cities.

The strategic depth in this is actually mindnumbing and I stand in awe of the braniacs at Firaxis who have devised this strategy extravaganza.

[Libertarian]

Well said, Kamrat. Perhaps a golf clap is in order.

[Zoid]

Well, thank you *takes a bow*

Welcome back BTW

[DrFell]

'I don't see how your position that player decisions in Civ 3 having great impact supports your earlier position that it lacks strategic depth.'

I don't see how it affects it in any way. Thing is in civ3 you don't really choose what techs to research. On deity you take them off the AI until you can build up to a size where you can research yourself, and even then you have to trade techs. Sure you can go off down a tech path, but as the longest tech paths are only a 4 or 5 techs it really doesn't change much, and the AI will catch up rapidly anyway.

'I don't remember being able to get techs that you didn't already have the requirements for in Civ 1 or 2. I don't remember building cars, either.'

Automobile, a prequisite of mobile warfare, you see the effect in game by increased population pollution. You can acquire techs you don't have the prequisites for trust me.

'The reason why the age model is in place should be obvious.'

It is, to cripple the human. You can't seriously say that stopping a human from having free choice of techs is a great idea. Say you're trapped on an island with sea squares all around. Three choices, go for lighthouse, risk losing lots of ships, or go for navigation - wait, you can't go straight for navigation in civ3! No, you have to research a LOT of unnecessary technology. In civ2 you could even go for seafaring and reduce the chance of losing your triremes.

'As for in game flexibility in terms of customized cultures'

The limitations in the tech tree hurt that a lot. You should see some of the brilliantly specialised strategies and the civs they produce in MP. For example, a completely naval civ, a completely war orientated civ, or a completely tech/cash orientated civ. You can't do that in civ3.

'Yes, it's a shame there aren't scenarios for Civ 3. I've heard good things about the mods. Have you checked them out?'

I don't really like playing with mods, I prefer to keep the game as it came from the box for MP purposes (unless when MP comes out a particular mod becomes standard).

'I take it you cannot think of a game in the genre that has better AI than Civ 3. That's what I expected. AI cannot be truly intelligent, BTW, it's just an expression. It can, however, be programmed intelligently, as it is in Civ 3.'

I never said there was better AI in any similar games. Just because something is the best, doesn't neccessarily mean it's perfect. Anyway, I can however think of a natural intelligence that happens to play civ2, and which is better than any AI.

'I'm still looking forward to seeing one of your saved games. Don't be modest. Just zip up any ol' crushing defeat you've delivered to the AI on deity and pop it up here. I'll learn a lot, I'm sure.'

I can't send you a save now, I'm at uni. These aren't my PCs When I get home (Friday or Saturday) I'll post one.

[Tarquelne]

"The strategic depth in Civ3 is staggering, you can choose TWO ways. Either you peacefully expand until the corruption breaks you OR you can go on the warpath and conquer the world"

And the strategic depth in chess is just as bad! You can only win by eliminating many pieces or checkmating your opponent outright! Geesh, what an overblow rep that game has.

My point is that just because you can formulate the basic paths to victory in Civ3 as only "two ways" doesn't mean there isn't (or is) much strategic depth. What matters is all those decisions along the way.

Ironikinit: Be fair - Dr. Fell should only have to post a Deity game in which he's clearly winning. I've only actually finished one game myself - I quit too when I'm certain I'll win.

DrFell: Your skill at the game isn't really relevent to the strategic depth in Civ3. Can we agree that chess has lots of strategic depth? OK, now, if you were so good at chess that no one could give you a challenging game, would that cause you to change your answer?

"It's just that other things are put in to limit the number of choices a player has, such as the severe limit on the tech tree."

Fewer choices doesn't necessarily mean less strategic depth. It just means that the remaining choices need to "work harder." Be more interesting or difficult.

Do you find Civ2 to be equally or more difficult than Civ3?

Lib: "Clumsy design, and not a deficient AI, is the cause of the shallow strategy paradigm in Civ3."

How about fleshing that argument out a little bit?

[DrFell]

'Your skill at the game isn't really relevent to the strategic depth in Civ3. Can we agree that chess has lots of strategic depth? OK, now, if you were so good at chess that no one could give you a challenging game, would that cause you to change your answer? '

I was just making the point that the AI really isn't that good, at least compared to a human. Yeah chess is a good game with strategic depth, and no I'm a long way from being the greatest in the world . Even if it was easy it would still be a great game - but that's one of my points, a great AI doesn't equate to great strategy. Great strategy is when you have to think hard over all the many choices left open to you in the game. The fewer choices, the less options you have to consider.

'Do you find Civ2 to be equally or more difficult than Civ3?'

Easier, as I'm used to playing humans. It was a challenge for awhile though. Comparing the AIs, 3 is better, but difficulty doesn't neccessarily equate to strategy. Maybe a better word for what I'm thinking of is diversity.

[Libertarian]

How about fleshing that argument out a little bit?

Sure. Consider Brian Reynold's comments on what makes for great strategy gaming, found here.

Fallen and I Can't Get Up

The game is so formulaic that once you have fallen behind by a substantial margin, you have no hope of catching up. There are no beautiful save-tactics like there are in chess, where you can find yourself hopelessly out-manned only to win thanks to a fortuitous end-game positional quirk that you've managed to nurse while you hoped for victory.

The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer

Op. cit.

Uninteresting/Linear Decisions

This one is the bane of Civ3's design, in my opinion. Early on, the game is interesting as you make fundamentally critical decisions between whether to build a library or a pikeman with scarce available resources and time. Toward the end, decision making devolves into which eight of your hundred workers you will send — one at a time! — to clean a mountain's pollution. Or how best to time dismissing the Domestic Nag (while still trying to read the fly-by critcal messages) as she asks you to build a stupid hospital in every city — one at a time! — including the one that is two turns from finishing its wonder.

The turns begin to drone on with such boring meaninglessness, that even Ironikinit admits to abandoning advanced games and starting over.

Micromanagement

Speaking of a hundred workers...

Nothing Happening

Once corruption has crippled your empire-building efforts, you yearn for more exciting activities like watching paint dry.

Bang, You're Dead

I'll never again activate the UN victory.

Bang Your Head

Make a generous offer in diplomacy. Be refused. Increase the generosity. Be despised and prepare for war.

[Arrian]

Great link, Lib. While I still play and enjoy Civ III quite a bit, I must admit that I wish B.R. had stuck around for this one. I would like to have the game he would have made.

By the way, the "fallen and can't get up" and "rich get richer" problems have always been problems of the Civ series, including Civ II, which B.R. created. A large part of that, I think, has to do with the Wonders (once you get ahead, you nab all of the wonders, or most of 'em, and they do Wonderful things for your empire). In Civ III, there is also the advantage of seeing resources first. The tech caps and cheaper tech if others have got it, I think, were meant to counter the "rich get richer/fallen can't get up" problems, but I don't think that was sucessful. So 4 turns is the max... you can still make tons of money and use that to increase your advantage. I think it's just a really difficult thing to balance properly.

-Arrian

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by DrFell
I was just making the point that the AI really isn't that good, at least compared to a human.

Oh, OK. I certainly agree with that.

Great strategy is when you have to think hard over all the many choices left open to you in the game. The fewer choices, the less options you have to consider.

I agree. But I think that's where the quality/difficulty of the choices starts to matter. I think Civ3 is "deeper" than Civ2 because of the "quality" of the choices, not the number. I think Civ3 still has enough choices to be "many." Not "Shall I exapand as fast as possible" or "Shall I try to win with 2 cities." sure. But there are plenty of "Where _exactly_ shall I expand?" types of decisions.

Comparing the AIs, 3 is better, but difficulty doesn't neccessarily equate to strategy.

Sure... Can we agree that "depth" is "Many difficult decisions."?
We seem to agree that the Civ3's AI is better, so the issue then because whether or not Civ3 has enough decisions to be "many."

Maybe a better word for what I'm thinking of is diversity.

What do you mean?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
If more city anti-corruption improvements were available it would be much better.

You would think temples and cathedrals would help reduce corruption, at least with religious civs.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Sure. Consider Brian Reynold's comments on what makes for great strategy gaming, found here.

Fallen and I Can't Get Up

The game is so formulaic that once you have fallen behind by a substantial margin, you have no hope of catching up.

Shouldn't there be a big "In my experience" tacked on at the beginning of that statement. That's not what I've seen _AT ALL_. My best games (most fun) by far are the ones where I have to struggle to catch up, and don't do so untill the Industrial or even Modern Era.

And I've definetly been behind by a "substantial" margin - over 1/2 an Age, I'd estimate.

There are no beautiful save-tactics like there are in chess, where you can find yourself hopelessly out-manned only to win thanks to a fortuitous end-game positional quirk that you've managed to nurse while you hoped for victory.

4 words: Spaceship Victory. Diplomatic Victory.

The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer

Op. cit.

Ditto...

Uninteresting/Linear Decisions

The turns begin to drone on with such boring meaninglessness, that even Ironikinit admits to abandoning advanced games and starting over.

My position is: If the game is tedius it's because it's not challenging. If it isn't challenging you've effectively won. Quit and start a new game.

Micromanagement

Speaking of a hundred workers...

How about speaking of strategic depth?

Nothing Happening

Once corruption has crippled your empire-building efforts, you yearn for more exciting activities like watching paint dry.

Which game are you playing? I've never been crippled by corruption.

Bang, You're Dead

I'll never again activate the UN victory.

So much for last minute positional saves, eh?
HELLO!

Bang Your Head

Make a generous offer in diplomacy. Be refused. Increase the generosity. Be despised and prepare for war.

What's the title of the thread.... "strategic depth." OK, just checking....

[Ironikinit]

Good ol' Tarq. Well argued and not a bit over the top. (Hey, if other posters can shamelessly lick Yin and Lib's boots, I can hand out some praise now and then.)

Y'all made a fuss about Lib's post so I took a look and the link really is good. You can see where Civ 3 tried to address the problems inherited from Civ 2, almost as if using Reynold's criteria as a checklist.

IMO, it makes a stronger effort on "the poor get richer" than Civ 2 did, notably how tech devalues so drastically over time.

Also, while I do sometimes romp a bit far ahead in the late game, lose interest and quit, I almost always start out a good deal behind. In fact, if I don't I know I'm probably going to be in for a dull game and eventually restart. It happens pretty rarely, tho, and it's nice to be able to be ahead in the ancient and medieval periods for a change, so I'll prob play a while.

[Libertarian]

Shouldn't there be a big "In my experience" tacked on at the beginning of that statement. That's not what I've seen _AT ALL_. My best games (most fun) by far are the ones where I have to struggle to catch up, and don't do so untill the Industrial or even Modern Era.

I think you misunderstand Brian's point. He isn't talking about that sort of "catching up". You're merely confirming the existence of the formula.

4 words: Spaceship Victory. Diplomatic Victory.

[...incredulous stare...]

You've equated these with pushing home a strategically earned passed pawn in an otherwise lost chess ending? A better analogy would be a random pawn changing magically into a queen and issuing checkmate of its own volition when both players least expect it.

My position is: If the game is tedius it's because it's not challenging. If it isn't challenging you've effectively won. Quit and start a new game.

I suppose. Thankfully, Olympic and professional level sports have not adopted your position.

"Coach, I'm tired and bored."

"No problem. Just rest a spell and start over."

How about speaking of strategic depth?

I think that dealing with a hundred individual workers in an interface that can move them one at a time speaks volumes about the strategic depth: namely, that it's missing.

Which game are you playing? I've never been crippled by corruption.

[...shrug...]

I'm playing the game where building a Forbidden Palace takes 200 turns. What game are you playing?

So much for last minute positional saves, eh?
HELLO!

The UN victory? I don't think the strategic equivalent of a magic spell is at all analogous to the careful nurturing of a tiny and ostensibly innocuous positional advantage in chess.

What's the title of the thread.... "strategic depth." OK, just checking....

Civ3 lacks strategic depth once the early game is finished. That's what I've been explaining in some detail.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
And the strategic depth in chess is just as bad! You can only win by eliminating many pieces or checkmating your opponent outright! Geesh, what an overblow rep that game has.

Yeah, I always thought that also. Damn that chess lobby!

My point is that just because you can formulate the basic paths to victory in Civ3 as only "two ways" doesn't mean there isn't (or is) much strategic depth. What matters is all those decisions along the way.

You mean like find natural resources-build cities-build improvements-expand your culture rating OR find natural resources-build cities-build military units-kick some AI ass? Or is there some hidden aspect of Civ3 strategy that I´m missing?