civilization 3 (play the world)

[SilverSmoke]

I am playing civ3 for over a week or so and I think it's a great game except for being extremely slow in multiplay.

At the moment i can just manage to follow the cpu's on warlord level while i kicked warlord's ass in civ2, anyone got some nice tips on how to become better in civ3?

I've found out that you have to mark your territory as quick and big as possible, it's more important then in civ2 because of the new resource thingies but somehow the cpu or at least one of them seems to be able to outrush me because of some madass expansion drift.

When I try the same tactic my corruption goes sky high and my border cities are doing **** all except for costing loads of money.

I am a non agressive player, i like to play by occupying a huge area and outculturing the enemy but i think i have to focus a bit more on war in this version no?

war is boring and annoying btw untill you have railroads everywhere

[Intervention]

I prefer Civ2 by a long shot.

I've found combat in Civ3 to be strange.

Then there is the mad expansion thing you mentioned.

2 > 3

[WST]

Originally posted by SilverSmoke
I am a non agressive player, i like to play by occupying a huge area and outculturing the enemy but i think i have to focus a bit more on war in this version no?

war is boring and annoying btw untill you have railroads everywhere

i'm exactally the same, but in civ3 i found some assertion is nececcary, and even a little agression :/

[Bloomers III]

i'm good at civ 3! I always eem to get the most land the quickest. best thing to do is BUILD the pyramids, then you cna produce settlers twice as quickly in your new towns. each of my towns produces two settlers, so it goes 1,3,7,15 etc. quite a quick growth. but it is annoying until you get railroads, so i tend to try and be as peaceful as possible. if that doesn't work then i build horsemen

[SilverSmoke]

When you concentrate all on settlers and get huge your millitary might and incity facilities goes slowly, that's where the problem oftenly lies, the cpu takes advantage out of that. It's pretty annoying.

how do you keep your far outside cities running optimal, I mean you can only build one Forbidden Palace.

[Bloomers III]

Originally posted by SilverSmoke
how do you keep your far outside cities running optimal, I mean you can only build one Forbidden Palace.

i think i use monarchy, or something so when soldiers are there they act as police. also i tend to build courthouses straight away, which does help slightly. but wait a while until you can build your forbidden palace in an 'optimal' place

[grkn]

I haven't played Civ3 for some time, but here we go:

It is a compromise between a) expantion and b) dense settlements to use the space to the maximum possible extend. The optimum would be to place them in a manner that each city influence (at maximum city size) just borders to the next one.

Properly employed this tactic gives several benefits: Your corruption level will not start behave like a Saturn Rocket and you get a very high strategical flexibility. You'll have short ways between citys to move reinforcements along and relativly short borders/fronts. It also allows for preemptive strikes against hostile forces just as they enter your area.

But this brings in several drawbacks:
Often the terrain will not allow for such a dense settlement plan.
You will not have so many territory at your command.

Solution to the second problem:
If feasible, build citys just where resources are. Of course, they'll have to be protected quite well since they likely be something distant. If possible place the city in a manner that allows both sea and land trade to make blockading it a pain.
Furthermore, try to be the first one to research technology allowing you to see strategical resources. As soon as you can see a new resource and you notice that you don't have it and neither can aquire it peacefully, locate the next source in hands. Start immideatly with preparations to conquer it, so boost your economy to war level, arrange for some diplomatical surprises and move those troops into position.

Important: If you're a democracy, you'll have only a few turns to get it through, after that the combination for war economy and war wearyness will be hampering your advance seriosly. After all, you'll also need some time and effort to get peace again. As a democracy, always try to provoke the computer into declaring war.

Try to get peace after you reach your goals, altough if you are a) not a democracy or b) the attacked one, this is not such an urgent problem.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Civ 2 is better.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Civ 2 is better.

i disagree.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
i disagree.

You're wrong. Civ 2 is much more elegant. If you want complexity go for Alpha Centauri. Civ 3 rests too much on luck with resources for my like. eg. I was playing a game where I controlled a huge continent, but found it nearly impossible to get any decent kind of attack force built because I had no rubber. At all.

[SilverSmoke]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You're wrong. Civ 2 is much more elegant. If you want complexity go for Alpha Centauri. Civ 3 rests too much on luck with resources for my like. eg. I was playing a game where I controlled a huge continent, but found it nearly impossible to get any decent kind of attack force built because I had no rubber. At all.

I kinda agree with that, but it's fun with these new resources and the cultural borders. Sometimes it's a bit too much a game of checkers the way you can use your cities to uphold your competitors though.

[Jesse]

I love civ3....i like playing one player, you should try it, you need minimul soldiers and can build your economy like a rag daoll, if my dam computer wern't so slow than mabey i could beat it.(aka it frezzes near the end)

[Jesse]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You're wrong. Civ 2 is much more elegant. If you want complexity go for Alpha Centauri. Civ 3 rests too much on luck with resources for my like. eg. I was playing a game where I controlled a huge continent, but found it nearly impossible to get any decent kind of attack force built because I had no rubber. At all.

so your wimping out because it's a bit harder, come on what happened to out population of game players, at my school only a select few play games, but than again im in grade eight, but still, when i was like 5 i was beating the most complex games out there with ease. and your wimoing out on the WHOLE game playing comunity because of what? you can't get a little rubber! pathetic, you should join the girly groups of the school, i mean the snobs!!!!

[Scoot951]

I like Civ III and Civ II. I like the addition of real borders, trade with resources, graphics and that. My main complaints with III are in the levels of corruption, which sometimes hit me a lot higher than it seems it should, and the high advantage defenders seem to have. But I think that might've been a problem in II as well.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You're wrong. Civ 2 is much more elegant. If you want complexity go for Alpha Centauri. Civ 3 rests too much on luck with resources for my like. eg. I was playing a game where I controlled a huge continent, but found it nearly impossible to get any decent kind of attack force built because I had no rubber. At all.

opinions are never wrong, they are entirely subjective.
civ2 is boring.

[Tietäjä]

I've ran through Civ3 (recently, I played it alot in a few months) in the deity level, though it has nothing to do with multiplay.

The key is, prolly in MP too, circling the area and gaining the few key wonders.

I'll see if I can find time to write more later on.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Jesse

Long, involved games should not be decided on luck.

And I'm like really amazed at your amazing amazing ability to play games. Except I was doing similar things when I was 3.

Originally posted by Scoot951
I like the addition of real borders [snip]

Play Alpha Centauri. It's better.

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
opinions are never wrong, they are entirely subjective.
civ2 is boring.

You're right, opinions are subjective.

Doesn't stop you being wrong though.

[Jesse]

its more realistic. thats why i like it, luck is in any game, if your playing with 8 players, i would prefere to have only 1-2 players on my isle, but i could get lik 6 surrounding me. and it takes more tactic to win the game if you can't build tanks, use culture to gain what you need, or just overrun and pillage therer resources, im tellin ya. don't give out on civ3 because its a bit harder. the enemy had all resources except for uranium. i didn't have any, he was building tanks and soldiers. i defended myself best i could untill i made peace, i regrouped my soldiers and than went in and struck them hard. use several tactics at once, implement a strike to an enemy while getting a new base established, always have
more than three soldiers in a base at all times, have three oe four outside the base, nad always expand your territory with settlers. hope this helps, i haven't played the game in 3 months(computer sucks and it keep freezing)

[MrL_JaKiri]

I know perfectly well how to play Civ 3.

I just don't like it.

[ELeeming]

Call to power is clearly the best

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Civ 3 rests too much on luck with resources for my like. eg. I was playing a game where I controlled a huge continent, but found it nearly impossible to get any decent kind of attack force built because I had no rubber. At all.

I disagree, the recources thing is a nice addition. You can always trade for the ones you havent got, and if that isn't possible or the bastards are robbing you, then you have a good incentive for going to war (just like in real life).

Attacking someone to capture a resource they are holding adds a more realistic purpose for a war than the usual war of total annihilation.

Only thing i don't like about the Civ3 is the artillery. Sucks bigtime that you cannot sink ships with your cruise missiles or wipe out units (e.g a fleet of ships) with a nuclear missile.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by ELeeming
Call to power is clearly the best

It's too slooooooow.

Moving hordes of units and being forced to use the animations is irritating in the extreme.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Emperorn

I don't play Civ2 because it's realistic, I play it because it's an extremely slick TBS game.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Emperorn

Only thing i don't like about the Civ3 is the artillery. Sucks bigtime that you cannot sink ships with your cruise missiles or wipe out units (e.g a fleet of ships) with a nuclear missile.

Artillery is about defence, mainly.

Softening the attackers armies, that is, without loosing too many units. Armies tend to be difficult and unit-draining at higher technology levels (an army of mech infantries is a real pain-in-the-arse to kill, an attacking army of five modern armor is annoyance too). The element of good radar artillery is obviously indispensable when you have railroads - you can move to position, bomb, and go safe. Catapults and cannons of course, are a complete waste of time and resources.

Of course, it's a straightforward possibility to go ram through with tanks, wich usually results in casualties - even if defending a metropolis. I dislike loosing units.

I think you can, with a patch, sink ships with cruise missiles.

[Woof]

CIV3 relies too heavily on covering every land square with railroads for my liking.

Can anyone name a really good war strategy game?
Not in the RA2 style tho.

[Tietäjä]

Steel Panthers?

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

What i meant was that i do not like the changes they did to artillery from Civ2, not that i did not like it as a unit class. I am aware of the advantages of softening up the defence with artillery before attacking with ground units

But thanks for the patch tip, I shall attempt to find it.

[G_frog]

War strategy game?

Do you mean something like combat mission?

Not my sort of thing, but pretty decent imo. My little brother really likes it.

[Tietäjä]

1.29f allows cruise missiles to kill units, but artillery still won't (well, soften with artillery, finish with missiles, that is).