The First Cheat-Strategies For Civ III: PtW

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by bad0cat
4) For multiplayer, I think nukes need to be reworked as far as effects, cost, and functionality. I can already see this scenario playing out way too often:

-build butt loads of ICBMS

-rush tech to Intergrated Defense

-without warning launch a full scale strike on the same
turn you complete SDI wonder (use a leader to rush
build if possible), thus taking out your closest
opponent (or closest 2....or 3)

-procede with ease to the space race victory

Sure this would mean a nasty reprisal from your opponents but you've got SDI so you would come out on top 99% of the time.

Don't get me wrong - I love the nuclear aspect of CIV but this seems like a can't-lose strategy in multiplayer that virtually everyone will end up trying for. Thoughts?

I think you overlook the fact that while you are going for tech as fast as possible, so will others, and you also overlook the possibility of getting crushed early by a swordsman rush. Yes, if you can get SDI and a bunch of nukes before everyone else, you'll probably win, but getting it all before someone else does...now there is your challenge.

[Panag]

Originally posted by XarXo


That's is. For a human player use nukes doesn't matter, is only a game, but AI has a programation that says "your planet will disappear, be careful, don't use them". The solution for this is that the AI player *must* use nuclear weapons when a human player does it. As cold as a human one. But well, this should be in the personality of each leader (militaristic: nuke'm all! religious: nuke'm all, in the name of God )...

hi ,

, only one catch ; "global warming" , ...

we should have the ability to turn that on or off , ...

have a nice day

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by bad0cat
I can already see this scenario playing out way too often:

-build butt loads of ICBMS

-rush tech to Intergrated Defense

-without warning launch a full scale strike on the same
turn you complete SDI wonder (use a leader to rush
build if possible), thus taking out your closest
opponent (or closest 2....or 3)

And what's wrong with this scenario? That's my favorite strategy against the AI now. Why wouldn't it work against humans? (Actually, I like to time my first strike just before they get Integrated Defense)

Panang's right about the global warming, though. The games I did this in usually ended up as desert worlds.

[WarpStorm]

The biggest flaw with most of these strategies is you are assuming that your opponent (or ally) is not an evil, backstabbing, super-intelligent, bastard who wants to win the game more than you.

For nuclear counter-strike do what is done in real life, Nuke Subs. SDI only says it only stops ICBMs. Hide a few subs out there for revenge. Nailing all of your opponent's coastal cities will really make his day.

[Panag]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The biggest flaw with most of these strategies is you are assuming that your opponent (or ally) is not an evil, backstabbing, super-intelligent, bastard who wants to win the game more than you.

For nuclear counter-strike do what is done in real life, Nuke Subs. SDI only says it only stops ICBMs. Hide a few subs out there for revenge. Nailing all of your opponent's coastal cities will really make his day.

hi ,

its always nice , in civ2 , and soon in civ3 when in MP , to nuke a complete carrier group , .....



have a nice day

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
For nuclear counter-strike do what is done in real life, Nuke Subs. SDI only says it only stops ICBMs. Hide a few subs out there for revenge. Nailing all of your opponent's coastal cities will really make his day.

This doesn't actually work

I just tried it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


This doesn't actually work

I just tried it.

hi ,

, what you mean it does not work , explain it a bit more , .....

have a nice day

[XarXo]

Could be great that ICBMs and the rest of missiles could be oriented and pointed to a city or area and when you press a RED BUTTON all them start to nuke everything

Also, a spy mission could be show the pointed areas.

[Franses]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


And what's wrong with this scenario? That's my favorite strategy against the AI now. Why wouldn't it work against humans? (Actually, I like to time my first strike just before they get Integrated Defense)

There is nothing wrong with it against the AI in my opinion. In that case it is your choice. But many of us did not like it in CTP MP at all. The reason: you struggled hours on a very interesting, balanced game. One got and build nukes first and whoops, game over in 1 turn.

I did that once and regretted soooo much to have spoiled a perfect game that we decided just not to use nukes anymore. Problem solved.

[wervdon]

Actually last I checked SDI only stops 3 in 4 nukes anyways And I'm also almost sure a nuke can't kill a nuke, but I won't swear to it. I know the few times ive tried to a nuke a city with an ICBM in it, it ended up with no defenders and still an ICBM in it :P

Also, Ive never actually managed to get SDI before finishing my space ship if I was going for a space victory.

[Taso_84]

i agree with warpstorms strategy against nukes. PtW should be made so that SDI can only stop ICBMs and not strategic nukes.

They also need to fix up a llot of stuff with air units and cruise missiles.

1. Cruise missiles should be a type of air unit that has a large range (6-10 tiles) and can be stored on criuses and AEGIS cruises. Once the technology of ICBM's is discovered, the cruise missile should be able to be fired anywhere in the world, just like an ICBM. The attack of a cruise missile should not be based on bombardment but rather like a conventional attack so that units can be destroyed by them. Its more realistic that way.

2. Jet Fighters are completely useless currently. In CTP2 u caould bombard the crap out of your opponent then finish him with interceptors. The bombard ability of jet fighters should be abolished and instead a new option like "strike" should be introduced where the jet fighters can attack and kill the enemy units. Otherwise they are useless and think about it; in real life jet fighters are used for more that just protection from bombers.

3. Aircraft carriers should be able to carry at leat 5 units and when attacked, fighters or jet fighters should be able to help the carrier defend itself. Obviouslly the defensive values of the fighters will be considerably weaker than the attack. This would stop the scenario where battleship can easily kill aircraft carriers. In WW2 we saw the battleships become obscelete due to carriers so its a bit stupid how easily they can be killed in civ3

If they fix these 3 things up then civ3 might be worth playing up to and beyond the emergence of the modern age

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Heres a trick I used in my SP game against the Babs.
Every nation in the world was fighting them and they were down to one city. I set my science to 0, and then contacted them to make peace. Since they were more advanced, I managed to get Rocketry and Fisson for Peace and 173 gpt. That same turn I attacked them. So I got the techs and I didn't have to pay for any of it.

[BigFurryMonster]

~ tech sharing ~

With two or three civs working together that share all their techs, the tech race will become incredibly fast.

This isn't an issue in SinglePlayer, because you are never going to share ALL your techs with the AI - maybe onyl just a few. In many cases, one civ is a bit larger (faster with techs) than the other, and will stop sharing. With teams of humans that really know and trust each other, this =will= be a problem.

A solution? Maybe only allow tech trade between civs that have a trade route, so that other players can block this. Furthermore, trading will not take place between two civs that are far away and 'middle man' strategies will become viable.

Is there a way to ensure that "friends" will not be next to each other..? Maybe keep track of a list of players that have already played games together, or check the IP numbers...

[BigFurryMonster]

~ the pollutor ~

A relatively small civ that cannot win anymore can seriously mess up things for other civs by allowing pollution to get out of hand.

They will suffer themselves, too, but they might just destroy the earth by this strategy.

[bad0cat]

~ tech sharing ~

With two or three civs working together that share all their techs, the tech race will become incredibly fast.

This isn't an issue in SinglePlayer, because you are never going to share ALL your techs with the AI - maybe onyl just a few. In many cases, one civ is a bit larger (faster with techs) than the other, and will stop sharing. With teams of humans that really know and trust each other, this =will= be a problem.

Two things:
First, I don't see this as a "cheat" or abuse. Sharing technology with other civs is a totally viable strategy, what difference does it make if they are your freinds?

Second, you forget that eventually only ONE person can win the game. That's the nice thing about multi-player Civ. Everyone knows that all treaties and alliances are ultimately temporary.

I can maybe see some problems caused by two buddies helping eachother out over the course of the game but tech sharing is not one of them.

~ the pollutor ~

A relatively small civ that cannot win anymore can seriously mess up things for other civs by allowing pollution to get out of hand.

They will suffer themselves, too, but they might just destroy the earth by this strategy.

Again, I fail to see why this is a bad thing. This adds extra elements of strategy to the game. In single player, you didnt have to worry about Civs who you had greatly surpassed (either by expansion/tech or in conquest). But a human player who is far behind can still be a serious thorn in your side (or everyone's side). In multiplayer, I fear not the CIV with 50 ICBM's... I fear the CIV with one sub and 1 nuke.