Status of Vel's Strat Guide

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

That was such a great post I have to break my boycott to offer my kudos. Right on the money and well written.

Can't pass through without a zinger..

As soon as Firaxis puts some strategy in the game for Vel to write about, I am sure Vel will deliver.

[Velociryx]

Soon as the patch comes out, I'll be fiddling with that very thing! I've been thinking of some workarounds and fixes for various aspects of the game that are out of balance, but before I do tooooo much on that, I am curious to see what Play the World is gonna do to fix the Commercial trait. Got some ideas of my own, but I'm waiting...and yeah, the new patch makes the editor sound a whole lot better....I'm lookin' forward to that!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Thank ya JT! As I'm going back and reviewing the earlier (and some later) notes on the game, what I'm seeing is a lot of tactical discussion. Topics like:

What's a good build order?

How to execute an early war (Archer strike)

How to oscillate and keep the pressure on all my neighbors

There is some play in the various civs, discussions of inherent strengths and weaknesses (UU's and starting techs, assuming you play with those options turned on), and that's good for a bit of discussion.

I've experimented with the notion of changing the AI's tendency to trade (there's a user configurable value in the editor), but I've taken it to both extremes, and have not noticed any real slowing down of the AI's tech whoring tendencies.

What ultimately happens is that, the more civs you include in the game, the faster you go up the tech tree. That's a pity, cos more civs = a more dynamic and engaging game....more threats and dangers from different fronts. Unfortunately, with AI tech whoring so rampant, it also destroys any sense of strategy in terms of approaching the tech tree.

-=Vel=-

[Alex]

hi, jt.

nice to see you again.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Velociryx

1) Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with.

It seems like I picked a good time for my quarterly visit to the Civ3 forums. Vel, glad to see you alive and well (last we talked, you were in the midst of a nasty flu).

To me, when talking about the Civ3 regular game, the above quote nails it perfectly. This is the single most fatal flaw in the game and one that canno be underestimated. Because of this, Civ3 is so unlike (and inferior to) Civ2. I have always wished they made Civ2.5 and now I am absolutely sure of it.

However, as you know, I still key on scenarios and given the news about the README, we are still a ways off from being able to create scenarios.

I'll check back in later this summer.

BTW Vel, how's the new game company coming along?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Vel,

That was such a great post I have to break my boycott to offer my kudos. Right on the money and well written.

Can't pass through without a zinger..

As soon as Firaxis puts some strategy in the game for Vel to write about, I am sure Vel will deliver.

there's nothing like a man with principles, and jimmy, youre nothing like a man with principles

[Nostromo]

Like you, I enjoy the game somewhat, but I'm not gaga.

Originally posted by Velociryx

1) Linear approach. I'm reminded of the movie, "The Golden Child" :: old man's voice echoing:: "Stay on the path!" And that's true. Play the game the way the designers say so, and you excel. Deviate from the methodology they lay out before you, and you screw yourself. That's linear gameplay. Their way or no way. For a game that's supposed to model (perhaps not historically accurately model, but that's another story) the history of human civilization, and given the open- ended nature of the subject matter, that seems a hellish harness to saddle players with.

But when there is no way, in a game, to counter a given strategy, when that strategy becomes too dominating, it's a good thing to kill it off. The decision to kill ICS was a good one IMO. But some other decisions puzzle me. Why did they try, for instance, to kill the culture bomb?

Originally posted by Velociryx

4) An unrealistic combat model. Grossly unrealistic. The proper fix to the "well what if my civ doesn't have resource X" problem would have been to make no-resource alternative units available in all eras. The quick, "cover it up" fix was to hamstring the combat system into what we have now. Post 1.21, things are a bit better, as you can alter the model with bonus hp's, but prior to that, combat was....spooky and frustrating. Of course, the argument can be made (and in fact, I've made it myself) that Civ3 is not a wargame....it's not....wasn't meant to be....but since warring IS a part of civilization, and since players spend a good bit of their time warring, it woulda been nice...it woulda been awesome if the combat model had been.....engaging. Dynamic. Maybe more on this side of realism than not.

Strickly speaking, its not a wargame, but take away war and you have a pretty boring game on your hands. I, too, dearly miss SMAC's rock-paper-scissors combat model.

[Velociryx]

Alive and well! Good to see you, Master Clark! The game company is coming along splendidly! When you next get the chance, drop by the Candle'Bre forums here on 'poly! Your input and insight would be GREATLY appreciated!

I totally agree that getting rid of loopholes and such that make a human player unbeatable is prolly a good thing, at least in terms of SP....for MP games, I'd just as soon see the loopholes remain, as then it becomes a matter of execution....besides, in many cases, loopholes have counterloopholes, and in MP, it sets up an interesting metagame thing.

Trouble is tho, in Civ3, I don't really see that the notion of ICS is dead. The AI does it, churning out cities endlessly. The human will do it too, if for no other reason than to keep pace with the AI's burgeoning production advantages. The human player also has a compelling reason to perpetually expand....if I capture an AI city, even if it only cranks out one shild per turn, at least it's not cranking out anything for the AI, and I can bump up food production and make a wad of specialists....taxmen and/or scientists, and at least get a little something out of each new city I add to my collection (after rushing in a few improvements, the fringe cities actually become quite good money or science producers).

In spite of its weaknesses though, it IS a good game, and a good gaming experience. It just....lacks that certain something that held my attention for extended periods with other games in the line.

-=Vel=-

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Velociryx

I totally agree that getting rid of loopholes and such that make a human player unbeatable is prolly a good thing, at least in terms of SP....for MP games, I'd just as soon see the loopholes remain, as then it becomes a matter of execution....besides, in many cases, loopholes have counterloopholes, and in MP, it sets up an interesting metagame thing.

Interesting point. But IIRC they tried to kill off ICS because no one ever found a counterloophole. And if no one ever found one, maybe there isn't one. All these Civ grand masters can't be wrong. So you either kill off ICS, or you keep ICS as an option, but change the system so that more "qualitative" strategies become a viable alternative.

Originally posted by Velociryx

Trouble is tho, in Civ3, I don't really see that the notion of ICS is dead. The AI does it, churning out cities endlessly. The human will do it too, if for no other reason than to keep pace with the AI's burgeoning production advantages. The human player also has a compelling reason to perpetually expand....if I capture an AI city, even if it only cranks out one shild per turn, at least it's not cranking out anything for the AI, and I can bump up food production and make a wad of specialists....taxmen and/or scientists, and at least get a little something out of each new city I add to my collection (after rushing in a few improvements, the fringe cities actually become quite good money or science producers).

Korn argued clearly and persuasively here that ICS and REX are different, and that Civ 2-style ICS is dead:

So while Civ3 is dead and gone, Rapid Expansion (REX) has taken its place. The thing about REX is that it is non exploitive, so it is far better than ICS, and REX rewards the players that carefully position their cities, because cities grow faster in Civ3 than they did in Civ2, so tightly spaced cities quickly become inefficient. While the AI can be annoying, especially when it practices REX, you don't have to REX to get ahead unlike ICS in Civ2. Carefully choosen city sites along with a good cultural infrastructure means that you can expand slower yet still remain as productive, and even have a chance to assimilate the enemy. All it all it seems like a huge advance over earlier Civ games.

Of course, he meant to say "So while ICS is dead and gone..."

[MattyBoy]

Vel, thanks for the responses.

That lack of a Linear Approach in CivI is what got me hooked in the first place. I loved backing away from a local optimum, making drastic changes and finding a more effective strategy, then in the next game, finding that the new approach is not really working for a different situation. Time to think again.

[Velociryx]

Morning guys!

Here would be my take on it (the REX, ICS thing):

REX, by its definition, is all about rapid expansion in the early game. For REX to be fundamentally different from ICS though, it implies that the early game represents the window of opportunity for expansion to get yourself on par with the AI, and use it to blow past the AI in all the meaningful measures of productivity.

The problem lies in the fact that if I build an endless stream of cities, I'm taking up land that the AI could be using to build cities of its own. So I'll do it, well beyond the early game, simply to deny the AI access to land it could otherwise use.

True, it's not *quite* the same as Civ2-style, cities in every other tile ICS, but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. I can spew out an endless stream of cities, space them a bit further apart, thanks to culture and border bumping, deny the AI access to all the land, give myself more production centers, and crank out some cheap-o unit (either through classic production, or through conscription, which is the biggest Civ3 ICS exploit, as it relies completely on food (unaffected by corruption) to churn out troops.

They've partially buried ICS by means of their various fixes, but IMO, it's still alive and well. Pop rush (or cash-rush) a granary in a new little city, and it doesn't much matter if its production sucks. Ten conscripted soldiers (not to worry about the population....it'll grow back more rapidly in Civ3 anyway) will trounce pretty much anything the AI has, even if you're behind in tech. This, because the AI is still not so good at defending itself.

Of course, as with the earlier iterations of the game, and has been clearly demonstrated, there's no need to conscript/rush your way to dominance, but if you want a surefire way to win the game, then ICS works here just as well as the earlier iterations of the game. Its function and methodology may have changed (expected, in the face of changing rules on support and such), but the concepts and principles remain largely the same IMO.

-=Vel=-

[Adm.Naismith]

I played Civ I, II, SMAC and Civ III

I must admit I'm probably a half decent player (not a great one, but I never really tested myself in MP or in some Tournament, so none really know ).

I simply play to enjoy (waste) the spare time, add game frustration to my job regular stress, reduce sometime my night to about 3 sleeping hours, ruin my wedding and others similarly clever reason

I haven't the patience to regularly check different tactics, but I've got the most from SMAC using plenty of Vel strategy tips&tricks.

I know I can gain more from Civ III if only Vel will help me with a Civ III strategy guide, also if it can only include some linear tactics.

Just in case you'll spend some time writing down a quick guide, please consider to attach some game save, to help us with your analitical notes

As in game situation showed on a chess manual, it can be great if you show us the game developing with a sequence of key save point. I know it's a bit difficult with all that save files to host, but I suppose Apolyton will be able to reserve some room in ftp file area, while you can publish only the commented links.

Thank you in advance for any future effort.

[Velociryx]

What can I say? With an endorsement like that, how can I refuse?

I will take what I've got currently, add to it, and create a new strat thread here, at the very least, to further discussion on it. If it turns out that we get enough material for a published version, and if there's interest in seeing something like that, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it....

-=Vel=-

[Lord Merciless]

Vel, but you must admit that Civ3 AI is a lot better than SMAC's. I have actually seen the AI
building useful city improvements, workers doing useful terrain improvements, and invading my territories quite effectively.

[Velociryx]

Total agreement. The AI is one of Civ3's strongest points. But, is the AI better because the AI is truly better, or because there are so few truly strategic choices to be made? I think the answer is a bit of both. We know that the AI will mass its troops and attack aggressively. That's good AI code. We know the AI gets increasingly larger (cheat) production and research advantages. That's a mediocre solution (but one that was prevalent in SMAC as well). But I would contend that it the absence of any really deep in-game choices, hand in hand with some really good AI tricks (settle aggressively, mass before attacking) that makes the AI seem even better.

-=Vel=-