It seems...

[The Rook]

This game is based too much on luck and being in the right place than strategy. The reason I say that is if you look at the historical record, size of the nation and natural resources does not always equate to greatness. Look at England, for example, the country itself is dinky compared to some other nations, but yet they were able to build an impressive empire.
In Civ3, if you play with a realistic map that is made of continents, there is a good chance, you are going to end up in a ****ty location. Now, that is fine with me. I love a challenge, but it seems that once a Civ gets a major head start on you, it's almost impossible to catch up.

1) Waging war to expand your territory is very tough. The odds are on the defender's side, and if you are in war too long, you fall farther behind.

2) The AI deals with you, the human, more harshly than it seems to deal with itself. If you are a pitiful little island state, with nothing to offer, it's hard to get the AI to deal with you.

3) The larger a civ is, the faster it can research new advances. It's very difficult to catch up.


I'm sure there are solutions in a gaming sense to all these problems, but when I play Civ3, I'm looking to relive history with my own world, rather than playing a game a chance.

[Technoron]

Look at England, for example, the country itself is dinky compared to some other nations, but yet they were able to build an impressive empire

guess they were either lucky, or in the right places at the right times.....


Welcome to civ3. Ruthless AI. Steep learning curve. It took me a good dozen games watching the replay to figure out how to just keep up.

[Spec]

Stick with cheiftan level, it seems that Warlord is still to hard for you.

Just joking man, you'll get the hang of it. I use to get creamed at warlord before, but now I kick the AI's ass at monarch with my eyes closed. Like Techmoron....eeee.....Technoron said, really steep learning curve.


To Technoron:
Sry man, I just HAD to say it once.

Spec.

[Blaupanzer]

Welcome to Firaxis' version of RL. To win you must be lucky, ruthless, and good. England was all three, eventually using sea power to secure sea supremacy and conquering less tehnically advanced civs through trade and firepower. IF the Spanish Armada had not hit that storm, IF the scots, welch, and Irish had not been so internally divided, IF Napoleon had solved the English Channel problem, we might not be saying what a great empire they were. So there definitely was a little luck there, compounded by ruthless exploitation of their island neighbors and wise enhancement of their natural defenses.

[The Rook]

Yeah, now that you point it out, I guess the English did have some luck on their side. I'll check out the strategy forum.