Should I Buy CivIII?

[Leonidas]

More on Europa Universalis2:

And don't expect to awe your implacable foes with your "culture", or expect that by building more churches, temples or mosques, you can take over their cities, armies and provinces. This sort of thing doesn't happen in the real world or in this game.

Although, you will have to worry about rumblings from religious minorities within your provinces, if you want to go "conquering and to conquer", you will still have to do it the old fashioned way, and build a sizeable army to be a land power, or build a huge fleet containing ships of the line to be a colonial empire. . .

[Ironikinit]

It's also a lot of fun watching the AI lose 100k troops to attrition while marching them through the Alps.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Well, the AI has diplomatic advantages. For instance, it will rarely, if ever, trade luxuries or resources with the human on a 1 to 1 basis.

Sometimes they will trade one to one (I've had this happen to me), but they usually try to get the best deal they can.

[Wiglaf]

Little question: with 1.17b it looks like Firaxis totally removed the 1.16f file from the patches section of their download tab at civ3.com...is going directly from the initial release to 1.16f to 1.17b a requirement to get all gameplay fixes? Can't find 1.16f anywhere on the official page anymore, but it'll probably still be at the fansites I guess.

Europa Univeralis 2: It's a vast, complex game spanning the whole known world during the years 1419 to 1819 involving every facet of running a country and an empire. It has a steep learning curve, but it is a very rich, deep game.

Would someone into civ think it stacks up as far as overall gameplay/strategy/etc, in your opinion?

To be fair, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. The two big differences are that EU is RTS and only attempts to cover a few hundred years of history.

I don't really understand the whole RTS idea with EU2 at all.

Well, the AI has diplomatic advantages. For instance, it will rarely, if ever, trade luxuries or resources with the human on a 1 to 1 basis. Also, it will trade during your turn. It holds up pretty well, tho, but it does do predictable things.

In SMAC I had a big problem with some of the options available to me - I could trade a size two city for a size ten one very easily, for example. Any big flaws like that in the civ3 model?

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
It's also a lot of fun watching the AI lose 100k troops to attrition while marching them through the Alps.

Kind of like real life.

In most wars the vast percentage of casualties to soldiers usually resulted from disease/illness. Just ask Alexander the Great when he marched through Persia. Or ask Hannibal when he crossed the Alps with his troops and elephants.

[Ironikinit]

Wiglaf,

I'm into Civ, and I really do think EU is a good game. It's much more about real history than Civ, that's certain. I didn't pick up EU2, but I might someday. This isn't the best place to go into it I guess.

The AI is fairly hard to exploit via diplomacy in Civ 3. It used to fall for buying useless techs, but I think that's been addressed in the new patch. Many more people complain that it won't trade fairly than that it's too much of a sucker.

Leonidas,

Point taken, if what you're getting at is that Civ 3 lacks attrition.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
1) Would someone into civ think it stacks up as far as overall gameplay/strategy/etc, in your opinion?



2) I don't really understand the whole RTS idea with EU2 at all.



3) In SMAC I had a big problem with some of the options available to me - I could trade a size two city for a size ten one very easily, for example. Any big flaws like that in the civ3 model?

Wiglaf:

1) I have, and still play all the civ games including Civ 1, Civ II, Alpha Centauri, Call to Power II, etc.

EU2 stacks up very well against these games. In fact, it is even more historical. It is complex and has a steep learning curve, but it is a very rich, deep game.

2) I dislike RTS games myself. Don't let the RTS attached to EU2 throw you. You are playing on the world stage, not on some small battlefield (as in Red Alert). You can set the game to move at monthly increments. Because you are playing on a national and global scale, the movement of time is not as noticeable. Even so, whenever important events occur, the game pauses. Whenever you want to engage in any actions, review your economy, engage in diplomacy, etc, you can pause the game.

As I mentioned, I hate RTS games, but I love EU2. The movement of time in the game adds a bit of tension and lets you know that you are operating in a "living" environment.

3) Well, there is a very long list of problems in Civ3. Some of them are slowly being addressed in the patches; others are just being changed/modified through user mods.

It depends what you are expecting to get out of the game. It has great unit graphics, animations and sounds. Really the best for a turn-based game.

The AI is very aggressive. Not necessarily the brightest AI on the microchip, but very aggressive.

There are a host of problems that I won't go into, but I'll only mention a couple:

a) The AI in diplomacy will do some pretty dum/stubborn things. Like your example from SMAC, sometimes you can offer the AI several cities, gold, resources, etc for a single item, and it will still refuse to trade with you.

b) You basically have to accept the premise that "culture" can help you take over the world. Conversely, you have to accept that an enemy's "culture" can mysteriously take over your cities, brain-wash all their inhabitants and swallow up your military units stationed in them.

This concept of "culture" is nowhere seen in the real world. I could accept it better in a sci-fi game. But since the Civ games have always been about re-tracing/simulating/gaming history in a loose way, I find this concept of "culture" truly strange.

You basically have to suspend your belief and imagine that if you build enough churches and temples, your empire will expand and your enemies will lay prostrate at your feet.

If you can accept this rather bizarre concept, then it's just a matter of learning strategies to deal with it.

There are many more issues in this game, but if you read past posts and scan the forum, you will learn about them.

I'm hoping that many of the worst problems will be fixed.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Leonidas,

Point taken, if what you're getting at is that Civ 3 lacks attrition.

Ironikinit: Hi

I was only backing up your observation

It CAN be fun AND a big relief, when that huge army marching towards you gets whittled down to size

This sort of thing also simulates what happened in history, making EU2 a bit more historical in its treatment of events. . .

I've accepted that the Civ series (now Civ3) doesn't involve things like attrition. It doesn't really bother me. The Civ games always dealt with the larger, tangible concepts of history without getting too bogged down in the minute details.

[Ironikinit]

This concept of "culture" is nowhere seen in the real world.

I guess I must've taken that anthropology class in never never land. People said the prof was a fairy, now I know what they meant.

Just pulling your chain.

The AI in Civ 3 is better than the notoriously weak AI in EU. I hope you don't think it makes death marches like the infamous Swiss sieges in an attempt to be historical.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Ironikinit


I guess I must've taken that anthropology class in never never land. People said the prof was a fairy, now I know what they meant.

Just pulling your chain.

The AI in Civ 3 is better than the notoriously weak AI in EU. I hope you don't think it makes death marches like the infamous Swiss sieges in an attempt to be historical.

Ironikinit:

Well, a game is a game.

Some things are incidental to gameplay and their values can be tweaked (like army attrition); other things are central to gameplay, and cannot be eliminated (like the concept of "culture" in Civ3).

"Culture" as presented in Civ3 is truly bizarre. The very idea that my churches, MacDonald hamburger stands or Coca Cola outlets will cause people to throw away thousands of years of history, wars, religion, nationalism, etc for my "culture" is totally alien to anything on this earth.

Even during the Crusades, no matter how many churches or mosques were built, Europe still had to send armies to fight the Arab armies in the Holy land.

However, I'm willing to accept it, and suspend my belief, as long as some of the other issues are fixed.

The AI is good in Civ 3; it's not spectacluar, but it is very aggressive and will give you a run for your money.

You mention the weak AI in EU2. What examples have you found playing the game? What level of difficulty are you playing at?

The game is constantly being tweaked. Remember, it simulates over 200 countries - which is a pretty spectacular achievement, when you consider Civ3 allows only 16 countries in one game.

[Ironikinit]

I played the default level, and after I found that too easy I increased the aggression level and the um... I know there were two different switches, but I've forgotten the other. Does that help? I could still beat Spain to Mexico when playing as England, I remember that much. It helped that I knew where all the goodies were.

As for examples of bad AI, the death marches should do. Also while AI control France marched off to oblivion, I could end run small cavalry armies as Austria and pillage their provinces and it wouldn't counter. (Exploit, I suppose.) Then there was how it wouldn't protect its capital well enough thus allowing me to put a quick end to wars, even if it had 3 or 4 times the troops I had. Of course, they were usually in Switzerland for some reason.

The AI in EU just wasn't strong, and I can find you fan and professional reviews to attest to that if you insist. I'm a fan myself. What prevented me from buying the sequel were reports that the AI hadn't been improved. That and laziness. And loose women. Plus I got high.

The scope of EU really is grand. The first time I played it I was really taken at just how huge it really is. The 100's of available countries that you can play isn't new to EU 2, you could do that with the IGC in EU. I imagine they've fleshed out the minor powers now, though, and that could make them more fun to play.

BTW, you seem to overestimate how much culture flipping influences the average game of civ. Some games it won't happen at all that I see, some I'll get a couple rival cities to go my way, esp. if I play as a religious civ. Cultural reversion after conquest is another story.

Anyway, culture does matter in history, not least in how civilizations have expanded. I'm not going to argue that, somebody else can if they feel like it.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I played the default level, and after I found that too easy I increased the aggression level and the um... I know there were two different switches, but I've forgotten the other. Does that help? I could still beat Spain to Mexico when playing as England, I remember that much. It helped that I knew where all the goodies were.

As for examples of bad AI, the death marches should do. Also while AI control France marched off to oblivion, I could end run small cavalry armies as Austria and pillage their provinces and it wouldn't counter. (Exploit, I suppose.) Then there was how it wouldn't protect its capital well enough thus allowing me to put a quick end to wars, even if it had 3 or 4 times the troops I had. Of course, they were usually in Switzerland for some reason.

The AI in EU just wasn't strong, and I can find you fan and professional reviews to attest to that if you insist. I'm a fan myself. What prevented me from buying the sequel were reports that the AI hadn't been improved. That and laziness. And loose women. Plus I got high.

The scope of EU really is grand. The first time I played it I was really taken at just how huge it really is. The 100's of available countries that you can play isn't new to EU 2, you could do that with the IGC in EU. I imagine they've fleshed out the minor powers now, though, and that could make them more fun to play.

BTW, you seem to overestimate how much culture flipping influences the average game of civ. Some games it won't happen at all that I see, some I'll get a couple rival cities to go my way, esp. if I play as a religious civ. Cultural reversion after conquest is another story.

Anyway, culture does matter in history, not least in how civilizations have expanded. I'm not going to argue that, somebody else can if they feel like it.

Hi Ironikinit

1) OK the default level in EU1 is the easiest level. I think many people were playing the default level without realizing how easy it would make the game.

In EU2, from what I understand, if you play the harder levels, you will have a very tough time.

But with that said, this is a very complex game, and it is extremely difficult to account for every single action.

I do agree that playing as some countries (such as England) can be easier, especially given their island (and thus isolated) status. Plus they have an extremely powerful navy.

For a challenge, crank up the difficulty level and try playing as Prussia, Russia or some smaller state. You might have a great time

I have no doubt that if someone played EU1 and then EU2 non-stop for the past 12 months, they would be a pretty good player, and therefore, the game would become "easy" for them. But for the average player, there is more than enough challenge in the game to keep them busy for quite some time.

The great thing about Paradox is, that they listen to their fans, accept feedback, and are constantly tweaking the AI. So, i still expect big things in the future.

2) With regard to culture flipping, I suppose it depends on how you play. If you play on a large map with few civs, then it's not a big problem.

But if you're playing more aggressively on a regular map with many civs, then it can definitely cramp one's play style.

3) As far as culture in history and the game goes - as I've mentioned, I'm willing to suspend my belief for the purposes of the game (and it is a game after all), and willing to use work-a-round strategies to cope with it.

But Wiglaf asked for opinions on EU2, so this is all for his benefit, and for anyone else who might be interested

[Ironikinit]

Yes, England is easy to play, for the human. The AI, on the other hand, usually failed to take out Scotland and would lose not only Ireland (some games there would be oddballs like Turkey or the Papal States taking a chunk) but home provinces. Despite the attention to historical accuracy, there wasn't a way for the AI to make England overcome it's weak start so that it could do as well as it did in actuality, and that's in spite of the generous ratings English rulers got in the game.

I did play Russia, actually. When the Time of Troubles occured, I thought it was a bug, until I checked and found out that it was supposed to act like that, with the same negative event happening five or six times. Once I got used to that, Russia was pretty easy too. IIRC Russia was a favorite of those who liked to take over the world. I understand that doing that is harder in EU2.

I played Austria, too. And Saxony. And Sweden, and Prussia, and the Hanseatic League. I played the game quite a bit for a while. I played all the majors except France and several of the minors. I used Spain the game I took over the planet.

The main challenge of EU for me was figuring out how to play. Paradox should hire the guys who write after action reports on their forums to write their manual, because the one that came with EU was pretty awful. I did hear that the tutorial is better in EU2, but improving on EU's would be a minor feat.

Speaking of Paradox, if they listen to the fans so much, why didn't they improve the AI in the sequel? That was a major fan concern. Not just with me, but plenty of posters on their forums wanted it. BTW, they have great fans, and a really good, positive, supportive message board.

Civ 3 took a while to learn, even though I played Civ 2. Actually, I had to forget a lot and try to get a fresh perspective. Still, it was nothing like the headache I had trying to figure out EU's manual.

I'm still far from a master of Civ 3. I don't consider myself a master at EU, either. However, Civ 3, for me, is more of a challenge than EU. I can't say anything about EU 2 because I haven't played it. I don't play games long enough to really master them.

Addressing culture flips:

I play on a standard map, 8 civs, continents, large land mass (which does make it less crowded). In my current game I've had 0 peaceful culture flips and thus far 0 reversions, and I'm on the main continent and have taken cities by force from two different civs, including the culturally advantaged Babylonians. Cultural reversion is (was?) a legitimate complaint, esp. given that Firaxis felt the need to tone it down in the new patch. Cultural flips are not that common. As I said earlier, two or three in a game is about the most I expect, and that's if I try to force them. Some games I do get lucky and there will be that many without me trying to cause them. I should note that I'm still using the 1.16f patch.

Here's a discussion of culture flipping over at CivFanatics that coincidentally got bumped tonight. It has a lot of historical examples.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15804

Anyway, both Civ 3 and EU are good games. EU2 is pretty much the same deal as EU from what I know, so Wiglaf (and any lurkers) might consider saving money by picking up EU from a bargain bin instead of paying the premium price for Civ 3 or EU 2. I'm biased toward Civ 3 because it's what I'm playing currently. Also, it gets attacked so much around here that I think I tilt even more in its favor as a reaction. Lastly, I might be sentimentally attached to the series since I've played Civ 1, 2, and now 3 so much, not to mention SMAC.

[Leonidas]

Ironikinit:

I'm a big fan of all the civ games as well. I like a great deal in Civ3. I'm hoping that the problems in it will be fixed. That's why I still come back to the forum, checking on the progress of things.

Even CTP2 modded is an excellent game, and I'm enjoying playing it without all the tedious click-fests that other games have.

I'm a sucker for historical strategy games, so I'll usually grab them and play them when I have time.

I've just gotten into EU2, so it will take me time to get up to speed on the game. But I can tell you that the tutorials have vastly improved - there are nine of them now, and they get you up and running in no time.

I'm not a supporter of any game or game company - to me the game and gameplay will always determine my feelings on an issue. After all, the game's the thing.

There are so few quality games out there, that finding those few gems that are worth playing are getting harder all the time. That's why I hope the civ series and the EU series will continue to be refined over the years. . .

With regard to Civ3 being attacked:

Criticism of Civ 3 is not meant to knock it down and destroy it. Many were hoping for a great game, and even now, many still want the game to be fixed.

Believe me, what you are hearing from other gamers is a strong desire to have a complete game. What you are hearing is frustration, because the civ series has always been held in very high esteem.

The day that the scenario editor is working properly, and when many of the more annoying problems are fixed, many gamers will come running back in droves to play the game

So always keep that in mind - the critics LOVE the civilization experience; they just want to make sure that their favourite game never looses its focus or forgets what made it popular in the first place.

Cheers

[siredgar]

Wiglaf,

Buy it now if you can deal with the patches.

Otherwise, I'd wait until it is finished.

Sir Edgar

--

By the way, has anyone played Wizadry 8? Is it like Might and Magic? I didn't like that game much.