Where Did Civ3 Go Wrong?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In that at least, Vel is not wrong. And if my interpretation of the character of every game of Civ you have ever played is off (AI rapid expansion forcing you to do the same, pretty much forcing an early age conflict one way or the other), then by all means, post a save game and lemme have a peek! Cos in every single game I have ever played, that's how it came out. After a while, it was like watching reruns of some sitcom. Regardless of how charming it mightabeen the first few times watching it, the repitition got tiresome for me after a while. That, along with the reasons I've mentioned above, is why the game is no longer on my hard drive.

I'm not that great a player, I can win consistently on monarch and occassionally on Emperor, so perhaps I am not one to discuss strategies, but here goes.

1st: You don't have to expand as rapidly as the AI does, map dependent of course. I have found that if I try what the AI does, and have tiny cities all over the place, its like inviting the AI to come over for dinner. They will just pick them off one at a time. I play better when I have a nice sized empire, one that I can defend fairly well, overextension early kills me. The exception to this is that I will plant cities on luxury resources that are distant from the capital.

2nd: I have played games without ancient conflict as have others. For me it depends on the map size and type and number of opponents. Sure if its a regular map with 16 civs, there's going to be fighting nearly right away as the civs will be on top of one another. But, play huge or gigantic maps with say 8 civs or even 4, you're (probably) not going to have that early warfare (for me anyway, too much of a hassle to send a constant stream of units halfway around the world without roads). Also if you're on an island, no warfare there, drop everything and run to mapmaking and hope your galley is blessed and doesn't sink.

3rd: You say there are three opening strategies: early war; beeline to republic; get off this island.

This first one I think is an oversimplification. So while I suppose what I typically do is included, I think there are different ways to approach the early war. If I'm the Irqs, I beeline for Horseback Riding, to trigger the UU. Now I have some choices. Do I have horses, or are they nearby on unoccupied land? If so, I can start making MWs and go on a rampage. If I don't have horses (which I would have known after wheel) do I go for ironworking to get swordsmen? If I'm next to the greeks, anything else will get chewed up. Other civs, I might get lucky against using archers or whatever. If that is the case, I usually sit tight for a while, while determining who to attack to secure the horse and iron resources. (I had this problem recently with a 256x256 pangea map. I modified the size, but not the resources, so I had a civ with probably 25 cities and no horses and no iron, Whoops! (eventually I expanded to where there was horses, but it really was a pain)

Also in the equation is the Golden age. Do I trigger now, to raise the army faster, or do I wait till later in the game when I have more cities to take advantage of it?

What about the use of leaders? Blow now on a wonder, save for a wonder (bypassing other chances to get GLs) or create an army (to increase chances of getting great leaders). Some people have only seen a few of the GLs so they are quite precious. I usually don't have a problem triggering multiple Gls in a game, but since its random, it is an important choice to make.

Also, you have given three strats for the early game. What about after that time period? Sometimes I will hunker down (as the AI gets pikes) and try to get to Military Tradition ASAP before renewing old acquaintances. Other times I will ride the momentum and keep attacking, replacing my MW's with Knights as they come online. I could go for Democracy (and Bach and Mike) if I was peaceful and wanted culture. If I was still stuck on that island, I could go for navigation (though on the upper levels, if that happened, game over for me the human)

Industrial Period: Again, while there aren't as many choices as you (or I) would like, there are choices to make. I usually aim for hoover, getting industrialized in the process. There: Do I shut down my war machine piece by piece to install factories, or do I keep attacking with all my might? After hoover, I go for tanks. Other people will trade Hoover, or wait, and go for infantry first, then do the rest. Or you could get sanitation to get larger cities. Etc. Etc.

Maybe you and others can win the game within the first 30 turns. I cannot, therefore I have different strategic choices to make throughout the game. If I knew how to win the game easily, I would probably be bored with it too.

This isn't to say that I begrudge you or whatever because you don't like the game. What I don't like is how you broke the game down into 3 steps and said that's all there is to the game. I could do the same for other games, including games you like, wouldn't you respond that I was wrong? Also, while you say (and I believe) that you are not intentionally belittling anyone, by saying that the game is three mindless steps, isn't it inherent in that statement that the people who would enjoy such a game are mindless? I'll admit, I like mindless activities myself, perhaps too much, but I find it insulting when I have to think about playing a game (ala civ3) and someone says there is nothing more to the game than a few steps and clicks.

Should I have thicker skin? Of course. should I care about what the Critics of Civ3 say? No, I should be happy that I have a game I enjoy. A game that is continually being improved by its creators. I should be happy that I don't have to hit the nostalgia button to find a game I like. And I should leave it at that.

Perhaps the real difference is that I just play the game for leisure. I don't have enough time to play the game to the extent that others do, so perhaps I don't get as burned out as easily. Also, I'm not looking for a game that will change my life, I'm just looking for a game that will take me away from reality when I need it to. I never expected Civ3 to be THE GAME TO END ALL GAMES. Civ wasn't, Civ2 wasn't, SMAC wasn't, so I guess what I'm saying is that i have never seen perfection in a game, so I wasn't expecting it here and thus can put up with the flaws, which IMO are less numerous than in the other games.
[blah blah blah /end ramble]

Thanks.

[Velociryx]

Hey asleepatthewheel:

First, I apologize if my categorization of the game was in any way a belittlement. That's certainly not what it was meant to do.

It's simply that I do strategy. That's what I get into. I play games with the specific intention of breaking them. The guys at the local Electronics Boutique laugh when they see me coming back for more games, cos they know it means that I've played the role of wrecking ball on the latest game(s) I've gone in to purchase.

Lately, I've been going through them more and more rapidly, which I suppose, on the one hand, could be seen as a good thing. It could mean that I'm improving in my skills where strategy is concerned, and thus, am able to reach a point in the games I play where there's simply no challenge in it any more.

OTOH, it could mean that the level of challenge in games is dropping as games are streamlined and simplified to have more mass appeal.

Perhaps, the ultimate truth lies somewhere between the two.

In any case, since I do strategy...since that is my thing, I view Civ3 (and in truth, any game I purchase) as a puzzle to be solved. What methodologies can be put into effect during the course of a given game by a player such that stunning victory will be the result?

In SMAC (a venerable game that is still, to this day, on my hard drive, btw), the answer to that question is no less than eight dramatically different paths to victory. Eight remarkably different ways of playing that will lead to the same desired result....and possibly more than eight, but I've discovered eight thus far, and in the case of SMAC, six of those eight revolve around different ways to attack the climbing of the tech tree.

In Civ, I have found really only two different ways of approaching the game, and here's why: It all boils down to tech advances.

Tech advances are the life blood of the game.

Without tech advances, there is no victory.

This is not to say that you need tech advances for the army (as has already been proven to my satisfaction, you can win the game as late as the Industrial era with nothing more than bone-wielding warriors)....so that is not the answer. No...tech advances bring you coolio stuff to build in your cities. Stuff that increases efficiency and decreases corruption.

That's why tech drives the game.

On the higher levels of play, the AI WILL out-research you. That's a fact.

It's also a fact that they trade with each other like nobody's business.

This is the secret to unlocking the game, and the REASON that it's so linear in terms of play.

Because techs drive the game....because the AI will out-research you on the higher levels, and because they trade with each other, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that what one of your AI neighbors has, tech wise, so do the rest.

So...given that basic structure of the game, it can be said that the game FORCES YOU down one of two paths.

The goal is to keep up, technologically. You can either rush for the Great Library, relying on the massive trading that's occuring between the AI civs to keep you in the tech race, OR, you can set your research slider to zero (why bother, you can pilfer tech faster than you can research it....might as well grab the extra money, right?), and go beat the h*ll out of one of your neighbors till he cries uncle. When he cries uncle, you agree to ease up....in exchange for every tech he's got.

But of course, if you spend too much time focusing on one individual civ, then the others will achieve critical mass and start getting entrenched in their territories, and it'll be a big hassel to get them un-entrenched, so the MOMENT you get the first civ to cry uncle, it is in your best interest to turn the army around (upgrading to better troops now that you have some techs in hand), and go hunting for the next largest of your neighbors?

Why?

Because the fundamental situation has not changed! Tech STILL drives the game, and the AI will STILL outresearch you.

The reason I made the statement that it really doesn't matter what you research is because it is far, far easier on the higher levels of play to simply steal the tech from others. Whatever you happen to get will inform you of your next move (because although it is possible to beat the enemy with warriors, it is not terribly efficient to do so....after all, efficiency is all about making the best use of the resources available, and since you're not researching, you have money to upgrade your troops once you GET better tech....and, you now know where certain juicy resources are...so again, your course is decided for you.

The most efficient way to beat your enemy is to rob him of his ability to fight back. Thus, you target his iron and horse resources. Once deprived of those, it's like taking candy from a baby, cos you hold all the important cards, regardless of their production and research advantages.

There's a reason that your next largest AI neighbor is the largest, and it probably has to do with his access to more and better resources, so...you go hunting, and you strip him of every resource and luxury he's got.

Why?

Not because you need them (well, you need the luxuries for the happiness effect, but the other resources are simply a bonus for you and a matter of efficient conquest).

Wash. Rinse. Repeat, until you are alone on your continent.

And once you have reached that point, it's a simple matter of finding the "other" continent (cos most of my games are played on standard sized worlds with 8 civs, and generally there's four civs on two large continents), and do it again.

Game.

The choices you mentioned are certainly valid, but because of the rate of the AI's research, and because of the small sizes of the "per age" tech trees, those amount to tactical choices more than strategic choices. The AI researches so fast on the higher levels that even if you gain a marginal edge on some tiny branch of the tech tree, you don't have sufficient time to really start exploiting it before the AI has it too.

Alternately, at the point where you have secured the continent you started on for yourself, you CAN settle in and simply play the builder game, cos at that point, with the AI civ's sharing roughly a quarter of a continent, and you in the driver's seat of an entire continent, you CAN keep pace with them research and production wise, and then some. Which puts you in the position of being able to simply choose your victory type, and keep an eye on the weaker civs on yonder continent, building them up so that the larger, stronger civs don't dominate that continent.

And that's what the game boils down to for me.

The mechanics of the game are such that it ENCOURAGES and REWARDS that style of play, and harshly punishes any other.

Why work against the game itself? That's my philosophy.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

Vel, I don't get that statement about SMAC-X. You say that there are 8 different ways to win. There aren't these games are all the same Outresearch the opponent.

[Velociryx]

Tuber - True...BUT...in SMAC/X, it is possible to research your way to a significan tech lead and do so in such a way that you can gain a long-term *strategic* advantages from your research choices....thus, the game plays out very differently if you, say gun for:

* Restriction Lifting
* Bio-Engineering
* Mobility techs early
* MMI
* Fusion
* Crawler beeline

You get VERY, dramatically different games with each beeline.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

So, basically, you are saying that all Civ 3 needs is more techs, which will lead to more choices?

All the Civ games have been this way.

SMAC had the advantage of not following a timeline, ALL of their techs were imaginary.

Civ, by it's definition, doesn't really have that luxury.

[Velociryx]

It would take slightly more than that....

In my mind, Civ needs:

A more realistic combat model that precludes you winning the game on the strength of warriors vs. industrial age opponents

More tech tree choices in each age, such that researching a specific BRANCH of an age-specific tree actually nets you more than a tactical advantage

No "speed bump" techs that provide no tangible bonuses

A more robust interpretation and implementation of the concepts of Culture and Strategic Resources

That would be a fine start, yes.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

And, I should add that it would not be hard to flesh out the "per-age" tech trees.....wouldn't have been hard when they were making the game, and in fact, modders have been doing that very thing.

For a FANTASTIC overview of some tech expansions, I highly recommend Aussie_Lurker's notes on the subject in the Mod section....

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

I'll take a look.

I have to admit that in the previous civs, and in SMAC-X, I always played a builder role.

So, with Civ 3, I'm actually HAVING to fight wars that I very well could lose.

I like the game for that reason alone.

[asleepathewheel]

Velociryx,

I understand your point, and I understand more of how you arrived at your opinion of Civ3. I will always just be a leisurely gamer, but I can respect those who pick games apart.

Good luck with your own game, I hope that it can give you what other games can't.

(and perhaps when I get a chance, I will pick up my copy of SMAX and try some other strategies)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx

A more realistic combat model that precludes you winning the game on the strength of warriors vs. industrial age opponents
-=Vel=-

I'm not sure I understand. You believe that you can beat my infantry and artillery with warriors? Or even infantry commanded by the AI?

Assuming veteran, flat terrain and no fortification:

Warrior v. Rifleman 1/132
Warrior v. Infantry 1/730

With artillery bombardment, fortification, town walls, rivers, cities or metropolis's, the odds are far worse. How could you ever take a defeat a city defended by just two infantry?

Warrior v. Infantry fortified in city 1/4762.

[Max]

Velociryx,

I understand what you're saying about this frustrating experience with science we all got when moving to higher levels of play. But there is one way to decrease the importance of tech trees in CIV3.

As you said: "the AI will out-research you on the higher levels, and because they trade with each other, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that what one of your AI neighbors has, tech wise, so do the rest". The fact is the less neighbors there are, the less they abusively trade sciences with each other. So the solution is quite obvious for me.

I got used to playing with tiny or small maps with something like 4-5 civs. Not only I can rival with the AI tech discovering fastness, but the whole game is quicker : for me it's just more fun !

I hope this can help.

BTW I feel quite sad that many people here don't appreciate at its full value the efforts Firaxis made to get close to the players and their desires. There are not so many games in this situation. Of course they did not answer to all our demands (go and check in the apolyton archive when CIV3 still was under development : the list is soooo huge!) but I think we blame them too often and too easily.

Damn! Civ3 is more than a decent game!!!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Vel, I don't get that statement about SMAC-X. You say that there are 8 different ways to win. There aren't these games are all the same Outresearch the opponent.

Tuber,

There are some very interesting ways to play the game of SMAC sans research.

Conquest methods include

Native rush requires no techs for Dee

Miriam with most of her allocation to energy (i.e. research off) using probes and attack bonus is yet another. "course this seems to be the path taken for CIV3. (Turn off research pump up your treasury and go to war. Get peace treaty get techs.)


The upshot is SMAC offers many different avenues of victory whilst CIV3 has cut those options down significantly.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, its more than that. Gameplay depth in SMAC is deep.

Example: Playing a game and looking for my opponent to use nerve gas noodles and choppers to whack my bases to nothing. So I build worms, the Neural Amp project and switch to green SE.

There is nothing like that in Civ3, least that I can find. Combat is brute strength AFAIK.

[Zachriel]

Reminds me of another strategy game I have played, Chess. It only has one victory condition, and every game plays almost exactly the same.

1. First, nearly every game starts with a pawn move.

2. Then you move your other pieces trying to position them for best mobility. First your knights, then your bishops, then your rooks. And movement is stupid. What is with those armored knights jumping all over the place. Don't the gamemakers know how heavy armor is? The horse would probably break its leg doing that.

3. Then you attempt to use brute force to gain an advantage by destroying as many of the enemy's units as possible. And combat is just plain silly. A pawn can kill a knight, or even a rook.

4. Finally, every game ends by trapping the enemy king. No nukes, no biological warfare, just trap the king and that's it. Every single game!

[Velociryx]

Well Zachriel, that got my afternoon off to a good start! Thank ya!

I've never heard Chess having been described as a 4x game, but it was an interesting analogy....

-=Vel=-