 |
|
PapaLenin
|
|
Finland
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
Dude you understand it all wrong. Civ3 is simpliest and most primitive game in the world. It's just all who are sending those mathematical and economical concepts to try make the game looking some complex equation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kekkonen
|
|
Turku, Finland
Nov 2001 time: 07:16
|
|
Winning (or rather, "winning") in Civ3 doesn't really affect the fun factor much for me. The absolutely most fun I've had playing Civ3 so far was the first time I played it all the way through and lost -- Cleopatra launched her space ship while I was still researching Laser. I played the French, and I had numerous small skirmishes with the Russians through the ages (none of which were initiated by me) and eventually a full-scale World War (which I _did_ start as a preventive measure once I got a few tanks) that eventually involved everybody on my continent: France, Germany, and England, the French-led "Axis", against the alliance of Russia and China. Nothing much came out of that war (I was more advanced technically than the Russians, but they had HORDES of riflemen and a few infantry -- why does that situation sound familiar?), but it was lots of fun.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chevin
|
|
Just my personal opinion on this topic from a warmongers point of view. !!!please remember this is a warmongers point of view and is not the popular point of view or you might take it is a flame!!!
I think Civ III is horribly complex and decidedly antiwar. Infact it seems Civ III has been designed to deter players from war/conqure tactics. The war wearines and corruption make long protracted wars impossible.
Since long bloody wars are the "FUN" for a warmonger, then I do agree it is not possible to play this game and have fun. You can alter your tactics of course. Fight shorter goal based wars. Hit your target cities hard and fast and then plead for peace. But this isn't how a warmonger would do it.
It was easier to be bloodthirsty in Civ II.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sytass
|
|
Yes, indeed great support. I remember (before the US release) I had problems with EU after a certain patch, causing the game to not run any more on my then old machine. Paradox went to great lengths fixing this problem for me.
Not to mention what permissions they gave for the ingenious "Improved Great Campaign" patch.
Certainly a rolemodel for other companies. And I cannot wait to get my hands on EU2.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rosacrux
|
 |
In a Galaxy far, far away...
Oct 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
In Civ2 I used to be a peaceful builder and I even have dig into the complex strategies (ICS mostly - but that ain't that "complex" ) so I could win on deity.
Well, now I am older (haven't actually played Civ2 for a period of almost three years) I have a wife and my job is becoming more and more demanding, so I really don't have the time and incentive to dive into the deeper aspects of any game (I barely manage to play 12-16 hours a week, damned ).
So, I am not going to try deity (or even emperor) for a long time. I have won my first two games in Regent and now I am trying on the new improved huge world map in Monarch. That's gonna be a looooong game 
As for War in Civ3, well... here are my 2 cents:
wotan321 hits bullseye with his post. That's precisely what this game is all about. You can't just go out and conquer everything and everybody (like you could do in Civ2) you have to fight with some specific goals in mind, just as - surprise, surprise - in the real world.
Wether it is that last depot of coal on the continent, or those good placed cities on the shore, or the necessity to reduce a civs power so you can compete in equal (or unequal in your favour ) terms with it in the future, you have to set specific goals and concentrate your efforts into accomplishing those.
You can't just amasse a horde of tanks and wreack havoc on everybody-everything, without worrying what comes next, it requires thinking, planning ahead, good organizing and some strategy to get what you want.
Total domination is not out of question (well, it is out of question in huge maps ) but it's just sooo hard now. It takes time, planning, resting periods and also some true human values as cunning, greed and backstabbing.
True human values, as you can tell 
If I didn't like to get into that kind of trouble... well, I'd go for some good'ole "click-fest-RTS" - but I am not really in a mood for those.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TheDarkside
|
 |
Slayer
Oct 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
Civ3
Whats up with those equations and how do they help anything? SO I use limits and derivatives to figure out my odds in winning the lotto, does that mean I'm gonna win it now? Civ3 is fun because it's simple to play, easy to get into- sometimes hard to exit! If you have basic common sense, you will do fine in Civ3. Just dont venture into the realm of deity unless you want to deal with game mechanics, like other paople said, which is BORING. It's only one notch above playing a computer in Tic-Tac-Toe.
EU2
But until Civ3 comes out with a patch to fix airpower, I'm playing this game! This game was released 2 weeks ago in my area, and last week the first patch came out! Talk about a dedicated development team! This patch wasn't necessary to play either, sort of how this Civ3 patch I'm waiting for is. EU2 does have a high learning curve but I think it's replayability beats Civ3, why? Well because Civ3's modding support is worse then the original Civ, while EU2's modding support is fantastic. All the country data, province data, leader data- everything is easily accessible via semi-colon delimmited database files and text files. Meanwhile Civ3 may have a nice looking editor, it's usefulness dosent go far at all- most of it is merely editting a simple flag to turn things on/off! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001 time: 07:16
|
|
Oh, and a war in Civ3 is much more fun than in Civ2. In Civ2 all wars were boring and one-sided - just swarm them. Here you need some long term strategy in them...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
G.A., how do you figure?
The weak AI, the (relative to civ2) weaker defenders, the unwillingness of the AI to upgrade his old spearmen to mech. inf., the diplomacy, the use of combat settlers... It all makes it easier to defeat the AI in Civ 3 than in Civ2.
Sure, a long term WW1 war is a lot harder now, but you don't have to do it anymore, since the AI is happy to sue for peace when you take half his empire in one turn...
Baloo, et al.: I was a beta tester for EU, and I think we betatested the game for over a year... Going through at least 30 revisions. Compare to civ3, which was betatested for at most five minutes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Allemand
|
|
Olympia
Feb 2000 time: 05:16
|
|
My problem with EU2 is they don't tell you all the rules, so I waste too much time trying to do something that's not possible. Civ3 is much better in this respect. The two manuals give you everything you need to know to play the game.
Civ3 is fun at the first two levels (and I like to play on a huge map). At Regent level it gets much tougher and the levels above that require you to endure a lot of pain, even though you find ways to win.
I think military domination on a huge map is possible, especially in the mid-game period, but don't expect faraway cities to provide much for you because corruption is too high. Usually, the warmonger will be better off taking just a few cities for bases in each area, and razing the others. After the AI gets railroads and tanks, you're better off to make peace or just fight limited wars.
The game is not as much fun for people who like to sit back and build an empire, without fighting a war until late in the game. I did this in Civ II, with very good results. In Civ3, you will not be able to stay far ahead in research, and sooner or later the AI will force you into a war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001 time: 07:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu
G.A., how do you figure?
The weak AI, the (relative to civ2) weaker defenders, the unwillingness of the AI to upgrade his old spearmen to mech. inf., the diplomacy, the use of combat settlers... It all makes it easier to defeat the AI in Civ 3 than in Civ2.
Sure, a long term WW1 war is a lot harder now, but you don't have to do it anymore, since the AI is happy to sue for peace when you take half his empire in one turn...
|
Taking half his empire in one turn... Could be easy for a warmongerish player, but what if I don`t upgrate my units until the enemy is at the gate too? 
Besides that, they happily build new units.
And I figure, as a war has different objectives now. In Civ 2 you`d go to war to destroy only. Now there is a variety of reasons, and destroying the enemy completely is not always the best option.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001 time: 07:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Allemand
The game is not as much fun for people who like to sit back and build an empire, without fighting a war until late in the game. I did this in Civ II, with very good results. In Civ3, you will not be able to stay far ahead in research, and sooner or later the AI will force you into a war. |
As such a player, I have to disagree totally.
Money can buy you the science lead. Have I already mentioned my current game with 6 cities (one of them 1-shielder on the other edge of the map), a huge science lead, and AIs fighting each other for 100 years, and never trying to touch me (except occasional MPP offers, but I`m not stupid ). Only one downside in this - in that war they destroyed all their roads, and thus they can`t sell me coal, which they happily did before 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|