Do you recommend upgrading to 1.17f or sticking with 1.16f?

[Cookie Monster]

I prefer 1.16f myself by 1.17f is definately a lot more challenging. I don't particulary care for the AI tech trading and hate the fact that it's very tough to play a game that's not me vs. the world in 1.17f.

My 2 cents worth for whatever it's worth...............

[MiloMilo]

I disliked my games with 1.17f. The tech trading gives it a real 'player vs. the world' feeling, instead of a nice 'player is one independent entity among many' feeling, which is what civ should have. I never actually played long enough for the AI to ruin itself under Communism, but it's another big reason not to upgrade.

I'm sorry, but a response of 'hey, just put research to 0% and buy everything' is unacceptable. I want to play the game, not use stupid exploits to beat the game.

I reverted to 1.16f, and I'm now having lots of fun again. The AI trading techs during your turn is only a problem if you try to get rich by selling to everyone. This seems cheesy to me, so I don't do it, so a big problem with 1.16f is gone.

[Arrian]

I suppose it all depends. I'm sure there will be another patch, so if the "enhanced" tech trading sounds like something that will annoy you, stick with 1.16 until the new patch comes out.

I've adjusted to 1.17. Originally, I was really frustrated, but I changed my strategy a bit and I'm doing fine.

I still don't really like the tech trading and the pace of tech advancement (too fast, IMO). But, on the other hand, the AI can now keep up with (or close to) the human in tech. Sure, it's done artificially, but it was too easy to gain a massive tech lead before. I feel lucky to get Tanks before the AI gets infantry, whereas I did that all the time with 1.16 (sometimes Modern Armor vs. Riflemen, heh).

The other main problem with 1.17 is the poprushing fix. 40 turns of unhappiness per pop point rushed, cumulative. The human adjusts to this. The AI hasn't. Once the inevitable World War breaks out in the industrial era and all the civs go communist, bad things start to happen. They draft and whip themselves straight to hell. Their cities starve due to excessive unhappiness. It's ugly. It isn't always that bad - sometimes the "world war" isn't very intense. But often enough, especially with a human involved, it is.

Stack movement is nice, and there are a couple of AI tweaks that are good (they occasionally use bombard units offensively now, and seem much better attacking another continent).

Up to you...

-Arrian

[Cookie Monster]

Just from reading the past two posts (MiloMilo and Arrian) I have an opinion of the real problem. Perhaps Firaxis is trying to please everyone instead of concentrating on a few fixes at a time.

Let me explain. Many people have claimed that pre 1.17f tech advancement was too fast and it was easy to outpace the AI. I'll agree with that statement only if we're talking about during the middle of the industrial era forwards. What I mean by this is that once the University is available the human player is much more efficient at creating science cities and tweaking the science and tax rates than the computer is. We can also better manage money making through city improvements and tile manipulation. In Civ3 the AI doesn't appear to be very skilled at creating a powerful economic infrastrucer. What 1.17f did was not improve the AI "builder" ability but improve the AI's ability to wheel and deal the human to death. I must agree with MiloMilo I want to play the game the way it was meant to be. Not by using cheesy tricks and gimics but by actually using skill and orthodox strategies.

Now we have all used the pop rushing exploit in the past and are now punished severly in 1.17f. These patches seem to address only the exploits that everyone here has discussed on the boards. What I would like to see is Civ3 patched not to eliminate the holes the people have found in the game and exploit but to make the game more enjoyable. It is very difficult to play a game when the whole world has signed an alligence dedicated to your destruction. Again I agree with MiloMilo, where's the feeling of being on civ in a community of civs? It's pretty frustrating to be the black sheep of the civ communtiy and everyone wants your death. If I want to play Civ3 like that then I'll go back to Civ2 and Civ2 ToT.

[nbarclay]

Absolute words like "all" are dangerous because there are almost always exceptions. I toyed with the idea of trying a pop rushing strategy to beat Deity, but finally decided that if exploiting the pop rush hole was the only way I could beat Deity, I'd stick to Monarch and Emperor (at least unless/until I feel like I can tackle Deity some other way).

It's not that I refuse ever to do anything that might be regarded as taking unfair advantage of a game design. For example, I don't know how many times I've blunted efforts to attack me in the original Call to Power by giving the attacking A.I. a map and then demanding that it stop trespassing. (Yes, it actually works, and with near 100% effectiveness in my experience.) And I'm quite willing to go through restart after restart to get a great starting position and opening game if I'm setting myself a challenge that needs a great start.

But something about a small town that's only reason for existing is to bring in workers to pop rush troops rubs me the wrong way. For one thing, it seems counter to my idea of how a civilization ought to work, which seriously harms the role-play element of the game for me. I'm basically a builder at heart, although I do view war as a perfectly acceptable way to acquire more cities to build up. And for another, the fact that such a strategy goes directly against a deliberately designed feature of the game (the relationship between pop rushing and unhappiness) causes me to view it as a bug. Something in my mind (perhaps having to do with the fact that I'm a programmer myself) sees a difference between taking advantage of idiosyncrasies in AI behavior and taking advantage of an actual bug.

If you like taking advantage of the pop rushing exploit, please don't interpret this post as criticism. I'm just trying to explain how I personally feel about it, not trying to say everyone else should feel the same way.

Nathan