I give up...

[LoopySnoopy]

That's it...

I've been playing Civ since I bought the first one on a crappy little PC when I was at school. I've always thought of it as the best game I have ever played, despite the myriad of clones and strategy games that followed, but with Civ3 I've just had enough.

One of the threads here mentions the AI being superb - well I've just got to the point of finding it stunningly annoying. I admit that I've got too much pride to drop down to Monarch (or maybe even regent) level for more than testing out individual civilisation strengths - because I consider myself to be good at this game. If I do drop down a couple of levels then I always win the game - but Monarch and above I NEVER win - after 30+ games this is just boring.
I did try.. and after trying all the various strategies posted on this forum, I'm afraid I find that the game is just dull. The other Civs always seem to do exactly the worst thing they could do at any time in the game, with the result that it has become predictable that if I take any risks the game will hammer me for it. Even the most Luddite civs manage to equal me for techs, and the enemy has the ability to produce phenomenal levels of units in war. In order to enable myself to be at most in with a chance, I have to micromanage every single part of my empire perfectly from 4000BC onwards. Even then - after me doing everything I can, generally what happens is suddenly most or all of the other civs declare war on me, and suddenly seem to have masses of the latest units.

Can you see how exasperated I am? - Having played this since it's release date, I am now going back to Civ2.

-charlie

[Tuberski]

And how is this a strategy? People beat the harder levels. What are YOU doing wrong? We can't have a crappy AI andan AI that always beats me at so and so difficulty. Did you by chance create your account just to tell us you quit?

Why?

[Alex]

Change your strategies. This is different from Civ2. Practice more. 30 games aren't nothing. One day you will win. It might be too late.

[notyoueither]

LoopySnoopy (if you're still here).

Do you have a save from about 500ad or 1000ad where you thought you should do well in a game. I'd like to take a look at it.

re the AI gang-bang. I can tell you that diplomacy is very important in this game. If you go to war, or someone else picks you for war, then you'd best get everybody else on your side first. If you don't, your oppo most likely will. I lost a game where I had excellent position because I decided, pfff, that guy declaring war on me doesn't matter, I'll ignore him.

[asleepathewheel]

I can sympathize with your feelings, I had my tail kicked multiple times when I was starting out, and the computer gives me quite a run on monarch and emperor. I don't think anyone here was able to pick up the game and win on Emperor or even Monarch his first game. Hell, my first chieftan game went very, very poorly. quite embarrasing. But I learned how to play the game, because it is different than the predecessors, and now I can win on the upper levels, except for deity. Do I win every game? Of course not, I lose about as many as I win. If I want a breezy win, I'll play regent, but the uppper levels are quite impressive.

Again, I'm sorry that the game isn't what you wanted. But play to your skill level (no one knows if you play on chieftain, it can be your dirty little secret) and you can learn the game. I can definately see how jumping in on Monarch would quickly lead to dissillusionment as it woudl probably be quite rough going.
good luck in gaming, hope you come back here to read this.

[Txurce]

NYE's point about diplomacy - the need for alliances with civs who can help - has also been true in my games. Sometimes you can get away with a multi-front war on your own... but early in the game, it's easy to be overwhelmed by an opponent who steadily aligns the rest of the world against you. I usually save my money at first, but the minute someone declares war on me in the ancient era, I buy Writing and start making alliances.

[LoopySnoopy]

I hope to hell it didn't sound like I'm just a bad loser, because of the fact I can't seem to win at Monarch or above... it's just that the tactics you need to win at these levels just seem to take of all the fun out of the game for me.

My problem is that there is no element of risk and surprise for me in this game - the AI always seems to go for predictable targets. Below monarch this makes it easy to beat, and above the amount of cheating that the AI does annoys the hell out of me - and makes winning (for me anyway Tuberski) next to impossible.

Asleepathewheel - I understand about starting the game below Monarch level and then learning new moves, but using the Romans and expanding collossally in the early stages, I always (well... apart from once) win by domination. At Monarch or above - even attempting the utmost diplomacy I still get beaten.
One example of something predictable that takes a lot of fun away for me - if I take over a large continent before I have done much seafaring, without fail I will find that on another continent one of the civs has conquered all, and fairly soon they will declare war on me - whether or not I treat them like royalty.

Tuberski - I hope I don't sound like I'm just a quitter - dammit! this is my favourite game by a mile - it's just that the AI cheating is just so much more noticeable in this game, and it just drives me crazy. I absolutely love so many aspects of the Civ3 - not least the whole look of the game - but I can't seem to find a level where this a challenge AND enjoyment.

Thanks for replying to this though - I have to admit when I started the thread last night I was really quite mad at one game I had been playing for three weeks - while trying to make sure I did nothing stupid, and which had resulted in me getting beaten.

Again.

I never seem to lose by much, as I am normally one of the big civilisations in the game, and I have often wondered if a lot of the players whose tactics I have tried will save regularly and restart if they do something wrong - to me this ruins the game, but sometimes I can't see how their ideas would work otherwise.

Anyway - I am just about to start another (Monarch) game because as usual, after 24hrs away from it, I feel ready to play again - and as you all say diplomacy and alliance is the only option - I'll try it on a much larger scale this time. I have to admit though - having tried aligning myself with other nations a few other times before - this normally results in me having to declare war on someone who I have no interest in fighting, and then my so-called ally immediately ends the war they started and leaves me to carry the can. The other AIs then treat me as an aggressor in all future negotiations, unless I manage to bribe the hell out of them. For me, this is just another predictable annoyance.

Hopefully soon there will be a multiplayer version, as I always enjoyed the Civ2 multiplayer pack more than anything. Maybe if there is I can play some of you guys and find out what it is you do that I don't!!

thanks.

-charlie

[Dominae]

Originally posted by LoopySnoopy
... it's just that the tactics you need to win at these levels just seem to take of all the fun out of the game for me.

I play my Emperor level games just like I would my Monarch games (now that the AI tech whoring problem has been more or less solved). This means I play to the best of my ability every game.

I think the bottom line with your situation is that you were used to a certain style of play with Civ2, and that style is no longer applicable (in its entirety) in Civ3.

The AI does "cheat" in Civ3. This means that to beat the harder difficulties you need to employ some strategies that you might not have considered initially. For example, many Builder players on this site have realised that Emperor and Deity are almost unbeatable (I hope I don't get flamed for this) without going to war at least once (constant war is not uncommon). Whether you like these new strategies is up to you.

In my case, I always hated building cities outsdie of the "perfect" interlocking pattern I came to love in Civ2 (4-5 spaces apart, 0 or 1 tile overlap). In Civ3, this just won't cut it. You now have to place cities strategically, for cultural and bonus resource purposes. At first I hated this fact about Civ3, but now I'm used to it and even "backfill" my empire once in a while (Worker factories are my favorite).

So, here's my suggestion: try to beat Emperor by any means necessary (this site is full of useful hints). If you manage to do it (you eventually will) and you still don't like the game, then forget Civ3 and buy another game. However, I'm betting that you'll find Civ3 both fun and challenging, once you get used to it.


Dominae

[Herr David]

Yeah... it's only a game.

It's not like you're playing against an AI that tries to mimic human behaviour, the AI in Civ3 (or any other strategy game) is merely a sparring partner for gamers with more experience than the once-a-week lunch break MS minesweeper gamer.

In order to offer a challenge, the AI is heavily favored - they get tons of free units right at the start, they get free support for units later on and they research faster. You can look up the details in the editor if you feel like it.

It sounds to me like you're yearning to play against another human player... in a fair duel with even odds. Well, Civ3 won't let you.
I used to play Panzer General 2 a long time ago and after beating the AI for the 100th time felt the same way about the game as you do. The only challenges left were scenarios where the AI had ten times as many units as I did... but then I started playing PBEM against other humans and even though I got thoroughly whooped, I loved it. Later on I even won sometimes.

[Theseus]

Very interesting...

Without having said it explicitly, I believe Loopy has been trying a builder / diplomacy approach... really working the diplomacy angle, trying to keep up and stay alive through alliances.

That is the opposite of what most do, I think. MPPs are notoriously dangerous, for the reason that Loopy points out - you get sucked into wars not of your choosing.

In fact, if those are the only wars Loopy fights, I'm not surprised at the losses on higher levels.

My counter-Civ2 suggestions:

- You've got to fight some early, proactive wars, for GLs, geodiplomatic balance, tech & gold extortion.

- Don;t worry about the tech lead... you'll catch up (beat it out of the AI civs).

- Don;t worry too much about the early landgrab... get big enough to wage succesful war, and expand through capture or raze / rebuild.

- Don't secure "your" continent until you are matching the AI civs in tech development; keep some enemies around as vassals / punching bags. Also, they might develop some early GWs for you to capture.

- Trade, a lot. Check your old deals, as renegotiation has turned out to be critical.

The old Civ2 style, which was either build-only or land-grab / scour continent, just doesn't work.

Civ3 forces you to engage in each aspect of the game - war, building, diplomacy, trade, research, etc. It's not so much a matter of cheating, it's just the set of skills that a ruler needs to apply.

[LoopySnoopy]

I have to admit - my first few games I (naturally) used exactly the same tactics that I sued in Civ2 - and got thoroughly beaten down. I was really very impressed by this though - and it actually made me just adore the AI!
I know exactly what you meant about the interlocking pattern of cities Dominae - that's exactly the same thing I used to do - get the 'jagged edges' of the city boudaries to match up perfectly. I've been doing that since the original Civ when 2D meant it just seemed the right way to do it..

I just cannot find a level at which the game provides a fun experience for me - although maybe that is because of my preferred style of play from Civ2- my favourite nation has always been the Romans, and generally I expand hugely to begin with, build up a large legionary force as early as possible, and then try and take at least 80 - 90% of a neighbouring civilisations cities, then sue for peace and as part of the treaty gain every tech advance they have. I then try and consolidate the cities as much as possible. A favourite tactic of mine in Civ3 has always been to bring workers with me on a city assault, then the instant I take a city use them to improve it with a temple and / or walls (this is early enough that I'm still on despot).

Early on in Civ 3 though - I realised that diplomacy with other nations was very important even this early. That's fine - the thing that really riles me is when a civ I am attacking suddenly jumps forward a number of techs AND is able to produce the corresponding defensive/offensive units immediately. The last game I played (as the Japanese - partially cos I'm Irish so the green appeals) the Romans went from legionaries to riflemen in the time it took me to take three cities (the three cities I took incidentally were in order to gain furs and wine to trade - something I have learned to do for Civ3).

I'm so glad that you folks weren't angry at me for getting frustrated enough at this to start a thread with my woes - I was worried that I'd just get abuse..

You're right of course Dominae - I'm going to do my damnedest to beat it even if I do go mental trying...

-charlie

[Dominae]

Originally posted by LoopySnoopy
the thing that really riles me is when a civ I am attacking suddenly jumps forward a number of techs AND is able to produce the corresponding defensive/offensive units immediately.

Get used to it.

The AI civs get bonuses to production and trade techs favorably amongst each other. Getting an early lead is and keeping it is by no means guaranteed on Monarch+. I play Emperor, and most of my games are "catch-up to the AI"-style until Cavalry rolls around (gallops around, I should say).

Basically, on Emperor and Deity levels, you have to play the game on the AI's terms, not yours. This forces you to be diplomatic, and fight wars when the AI wants to. But the game is still quite winnable.


Dominae

[Coracle]

The Civ 3 AI "exasperating"?? Damn straight.

"Going back to Civ 2"? You will be happier.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle
The Civ 3 AI "exasperating"?? Damn straight.

"Going back to Civ 2"? You will be happier.

That's better.



Yes, it is exasperating, but not impossible.

[Whoha]

you have to trade, the ai is such a cheap whore that it will declare ware on its best trading partner(4 luxuries for 1....) in favor of its worst one for what must amount to a few coins and a world map. You have to make that deal first.