Why did Firaxis ruin the game for leiserly players?

[DrFell]

'Thanks and I agree with you. here's my thoughts on your post If you read thier posts carefully it is obvious that one of three things is true:[list=1][*]they only play on small or tiny worlds; or[*]they are total eggheads that examine every detail every turn; or[*]they are lying through thier teeth about beating the game.[/list=1]'

Yeah sure, everyone who can beat deity is lying. Have you never heard of the concept of 'strategy'? Some people have a better strategy than you obviously use in your games. Using the right tactics, deity isn't that difficult. That doesn't mean they have to hyper micromanage, it doesn't mean they are restricted to certain world sizes, and it certainly doesn't mean they're lying. Guess that must be where you're going wrong. Christ, some of you are such crybabies: 'I can't beat deity and I don't believe it if you can waah waah waah!'. Geeze... go back to cheiftain if you can't handle the difficulty level. Then at least you'll have your huge lead over the AIs without doing any work at all.

[Spiffor]

I was surprised too in my first monarch game with the 1.17f, having so much trouble keeping up. But I made monay to keep up, I built universities everywhere, and I started to discover techs the others hadn't... I'm at the beginning of industrial era, and each tech I sell to others means loads of money (except the Iroquois, they all offer me ca. 50 gold per turn, and I sell it to everyone who s rich).
So they HAVE money, but spend it immediately while trading with the other AIs. You just have to be as agressive as the AI to be a scientific leader (with so much money from foreign countries, I have 90% of my budget going to science). And such competitiveness is simply fun : my lead is definitely not guaranteed, I cannot play asleep at higher levels.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I've not yet downloaded patch 1.18. Does the AI trade any tech as soon as it is discovered, or is there some prioritizing? What I have in mind is something like gunpowder. It is a tech that provides a big advantage to the civ that has it, particularly if his neighbor does not. Do they even trade away key techs that give them real game advantage? If so, then the "fix" goes too far...

[The diplomat]

I think civ3 tries to reach a compromise between the casual gamer and the expert gamer. Civ3 has less techs, less units, and less governments than the expert gamer was expecting. It also lacks features like "social engineering" or a unit workshop that I believe man expert gamers expected to see. So in that sense civ3 seems to be a little "light weight" to please the casual gamer that might feel overwhelmed with too many techs and units. On the other hand, the game did implement changes that would make the game more difficult for the expert gamer. Rushing wonders with caravans, ICS, corruption were all made to specifically counter known strategies by the experts!

[Seghillian]

One possible solution to this would be for the game to have a number of options that you set at game start, similar in some ways to the options for SMAC. For example "Aggressive Tech Trading" could be toggled on or off. Save Random seed generator could also be toggled thus allowing battles to be refought if desired. An iron man switch would be mandatory for GOTM type games etc. Just an idea.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Seghillian
One possible solution to this would be for the game to have a number of options that you set at game start, similar in some ways to the options for SMAC. For example "Aggressive Tech Trading" could be toggled on or off. Save Random seed generator could also be toggled thus allowing battles to be refought if desired. An iron man switch would be mandatory for GOTM type games etc. Just an idea.

Nice ideas.

Maybe on a exp pack...

[The Andy-Man]

yeah, in SMAC just about all the new feature from Civ2 were toggleable (you could turn them off).

in Civ3, you just HAVE to take it (like toggling off AI ICS would be nice).

[watorrey]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
yeah, in SMAC just about all the new feature from Civ2 were toggleable (you could turn them off).

in Civ3, you just HAVE to take it (like toggling off AI ICS would be nice).

I know i will be sorry i asked... what is ICS?

[yin26]

Infinite City Sleaze/Spread

Since creating a new city in Civ2 didn't cost the 'extra' worker it does now in Civ3, there were no penalties for simply founding new cities at an exponential rate. Added to the fact that units and improvements are made on a turn/city basis, the person with more but smaller cities would beat a person with fewer but larger and better developed cities.

It is my opinion, however, that the 'fix' in Civ3 was countered by an 'expand or die' AI approach and that the same-old "more cities the better" way of thinking is actually just as strong in Civ3 as it was in Civ2. Not that this is bad in and of itself, but it does tend to reduce to the game to a lot of tedious micromanagement.

[watorrey]

Originally posted by yin26
Infinite City Sleaze/Spread

Since creating a new city in Civ2 didn't cost the 'extra' worker it does now in Civ3, there were no penalties for simply founding new cities at an exponential rate. Added to the fact that units and improvements are made on a turn/city basis, the person with more but smaller cities would beat a person with fewer but larger and better developed cities.

It is my opinion, however, that the 'fix' in Civ3 was countered by an 'expand or die' AI approach and that the same-old "more cities the better" way of thinking is actually just as strong in Civ3 as it was in Civ2. Not that this is bad in and of itself, but it does tend to reduce to the game to a lot of tedious micromanagement.

Thanks. What gets me, is they advertise that this is suppose to be a game where you build fewer better cities. It isn't possible to win that way. You absolutely have to be the biggest civ to win.

With the corruption set up the way it is, i still don't see how a domination victory is possible on a large map with max landmass. Or any amount of land on a large map. I guess i will have to try out some smaller maps and see what happens.

I suppose conquest might be fun. Running around the map killing off the cities as they get founded with tanks might be interesting. It certainly won't do any good to try and own the map.

Anyway, i am calming down and trying to figure out the best way to get ahead of the AI in my present game. At monarch, large map, archipelago, minimum landmass, i may possibly be taking the tech lead right now while researching motorized transportation. There is only one other island that would give me cities that produce anything, and i may have to go take it. Naturally, the russians will be at a tech parity with me. No way to avoid that in this game. At least i got hoover dam on my big island I turned off UN and spaceship not realizing i was playing a totally different game w/ the new patch.

[Aqualung]

Mizaq:

What do you mean the AI CAN'T trade during your turn? That's news to me. Let me tell you a story...

On a correct-start Earth, my Persian warrior encounters a Zulu in Africa. During diplomacy, I see that the Zulus don't have contact with the Egyptians (or the 10 other Civs that I've made contact with), but they will in a few turns. So when Shaka wants to trade Contact with the Romans for Mathmatics, I give it to him.

Since it is STILL MY TURN, I decide I'll try and make some extra money by selling Contact with the Zulus to the other Civs. I try the Greeks... I try the Indians... I try the French... I try the English... I can't trade Contact with the Zulus to any of them! I give up and go back talk to the Zulus, and there are only 3 Civs left.

11-1=3, right? When I met them, there were 11 Civs that the Zulus hadn't contacted. I gave them 1. Now there are only 3 Civs that the Zulus haven't contacted.

This all happened in 1 turn... no, make that ZERO turns. I didn't end my turn, I didn't even move a single unit in between the time I first traded with the Zulus and when I went back to them.

Trading/giving/exchanging/sharing Contact can only happen during a trade. I'm pretty sure that this DOES happen with Techs, too. I'll pay attention to make sure.

[aahz_capone]

Originally posted by watorrey


It could get like a dance. Everything you did felt like it flowed naturally. Now you have to check the diplomacy screen for ALL civs EVERY SINGLE TURN!!!

YES!! THIS SUCKS! CHANGE IT!! There's no screen (not even the trade advisor) that gives you as much info of all civs as in SMAC. ESPECIALLY playing with all civ on HUGE map. SMAC HAD IT! AND MORE! I've had it with sloppy programming!!!!

SMAC mentioned 39 out of 64 posts (take a hint)

[aahz_capone]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
yeah, in SMAC just about all the new feature from Civ2 were toggleable (you could turn them off).

in Civ3, you just HAVE to take it (like toggling off AI ICS would be nice).

YES! ANOTHER PERSON who realizes that civ3 forgot a lot of SMAC things!

SMAC40:65posts

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by watorrey
What gets me, is they advertise that this is suppose to be a game where you build fewer better cities. It isn't possible to win that way. You absolutely have to be the biggest civ to win.

I disagree. Granted I was only playing on prince or lower but I have won or come real close to winning with a medium size empire. I stopped expanding at about 10 cities, the AI continued and often had trully huge empires, but I was still able to win. I built up a strong defensive force and focused on maximizing my economy. Culture was my biggest advantage. The AI ignores many culture improvements. Since I stopped expanding earlier, I started sooner to build culture. My culture was huge, and I often had much bigger borders and would even assimiliate other cities through culture.