 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
There is a wonderful possible thing to do with Civ3 : adapting his strategies which came from Civ2. In Civ2, I used to conquer the whole world with only howitzers / engineers. Should I complain because this is not possible anymore ?
First time I lost my entire offensive army in a deposing city, I was disgruntled. But I learned : 1° To build big armies, so that losing ten units is not that bad. 2° To let my offensive armies rest next to the soon-defecting city. 3° To rush-sacrifice native citizens of these cities, and to starve them. Less citizens means less deposers.
There are many things in Civ3 which are different from Civ2 in the strategy : you can't hold a city with 2 spearsman anymore, you need large armies to conquer countries, because you'll have large losses... All in all, war became more challenging : you need to think how you will wage it.
It is possible to learn the new strategies fast, but only if you want to do so. And developing new strategies, learning from the mistakes, is fun. It is at least my idea of fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kolyana
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by reds4ever
NONE of the civ GAMES are simulators,
build the pyramids and get a granary in each city?
build shakespeares theatre and get to support an unlimited army under democracy?
build leo's and warriors turn into musketmen?
etc....
things like these are just ways to encourage different tactical approaches.
now if Civ3 has got some of these type of things askew, IMO they are tweaking issues to be addressed in patches, not to be dropped form an "historcal simulator", which it is not |
Chester, ENGLAND?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
I KNOW THAT YOU CAN DEAL WITH THIS.
Itīs actually pretty simple:
-Leave just 1 unit in a conquered place, so you canīt lose more than one.
-If they defect, itīs usually easy to reconquer them.
-Raze centers of resistance (high pop/high culture).
-Conquer an entire civ in one sweep with fast units.
I did post all this already a week ago, so donīt assume I canīt deal with it.
What I am -and presumably the original poster is- talking about is SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. This is a big issue for me, and I am (obviously  ) entitled to my view. Suspension of Disbelief is well nigh impossible in CivIII because of a ton of bizarre, totally counter-intuitive rules like this one. Yes, I can deal with it, it just isnīt fun, for me at least, and many others, presumably.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bahoo
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
It's one of the rules of the game... deal with it |
It's a dumb rule, admit it!
You mean to tell me, and this goes for everyone here, you would not like it better if when a city was about to revolt a popup with your military advisor came up and he said, "the citizens of so-and-so are about to revolt, should we retreat from the city or put them down by force?". This could then be ensued by a cool battle between civilian partisans and your military if you decided to stay. Really, who's gonna argue against that?
And yes I can deal with the rule, I can and have won the game by playing by the rules, maybe not on deity.
I guess as Comrade Tribune stated its a "Suspension of Disbelief". It just doesn't seem to make sense that burning my enemies cities to the ground would make them like my nation any better. That and the fact that whole armies will up and vanish because they captured a city near the enemy capital. Sure, there's some strange convoluted arguments that could support these events, such as the troops marry the peasantry and stay and eat grapes, but that's exactly what they are, strange.
I guess I'm a "Little Napoleon". I'm not really concerned with winning the game according to a well defined set of rules. I just want to have fun playing the game and building my empire according to well thought, intuitive, and semi-realistic rules. I don't like the idea that I'm forced into committing mass genocide just to wage a successful military campaign.
And as far as Infinite City Sprawl, that still seems to be the strategy, the AI uses it to great success, and any game I'm been successful in involves building cities like a mad man. How exactly this deposing strangeness combats ICS I'm not sure. Capturing enemy cities is less viable, so it seems to me it would be more important to crank your own out at a high rate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
"The timeline has been extended all the way back to 1419 and Joan D'Arc, and forward to 1820, the Age of Napoleon. The scope of the game has increased too -- hundreds of new provinces and playable countries have been added to the map, and much of the non-European world, previously inhabited only by non-competitive natives, has been beefed up with full-blown kingdoms and empires. Furthermore, all these countries are playable, so it's possible to carve out an empire using the Incas or Dahomey or the Chinese, well before the European explorers ever arrive. My Japanese grand campaign, for example, is actually very peaceful -- during one hundred years, I've had one minor war with Korea and a couple of random event-created revolts. China annexed Manchuria, Korea is my vassal, and I know absolutely nothing about the rest of the world, and am furiously trying to develop naval technology, because I don't think I'm ever going to get any explorers.
But that's what's fun about this game, every country's position is pretty unique. And what's impressive is that even though you only control one country, all the others are in play too -- an AI traffic control nightmare, I'd have to imagine, which is why this game is so good. I don't know of another strategy game that has as many countries acting independently during a game. You may have anywhere from fifty to a hundred countries all engaging in trade, warfare, and diplomacy all at once, and what happens in one country can have a ripple effect throughout the world elsewhere.
Civilization contains a paltry handful of "civilizations" compared to this game, and the complex web of military alliances, trading agreements, and politico-religious divisions is both compelling and extremely realistic. This is not a game for those who fear complexity, but if you're a detail-oriented kind of person, you'll be enthralled. At one moment you might be trying to calculate if you'll have enough diplomats to create a new alliance, then a random event will crop up that will cost a huge slice of your treasury, or throw you into debt. And of course you almost never have enough money to do everything you want to do.
Probably the biggest new feature of the game is the addition of domestic policy sliders. Before, every country was hard-coded in many ways -- Russia always had cheap but plentiful troops, because presumably serfdom never went away there. Now serfdom and freedom can be set along a sliding scale, along with about ten other factors from free trade vs. protectionism to army-centered vs. naval power. What's best about these sliders is that you can only move one slider once every ten years, and doing so costs a stability point. That really makes you plan ahead, and it's more realistic. So yes, pretty much everyone in Russia is a serf, but if you want to change that it you can, gradually and realistically over time. That's cool."
Now, I donīt trust any review a lot, but, regarding only the purely factual part of it, this is about what CivIII, at least imo, should have been. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
For some? For you? Assuredly. For me? Lately, yes.  But hey, blame Civ3, not me, for all this time on my hands (well, I'm at 'work' right now). Better yet, blame MOO3 for not being released yet. |
Well, at least you have now admitted it.
Know what Yin? You seem like you might be an intelligent enough fellow. A fellow who I may have liked to read more of. Only, I don't have the time to crawl through 2 or 3 years of your Apolyton posts to get to know what you stand for. Are you so conceited that you think I or anyone else would? I only see the negative of your imagination; that being how much you stand against Civ3.
Sorry buddy, but negatives do not usually win many converts. Standing for something and stating it sometimes attracts admiration. Simply calling down others and their ideas rarely has much influence. Sorry, that's life.
Salve
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bugg
|
|
Florida
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Does anybody think that 5 battalions of tanks could hold New York City? I think they would fiercely resist. But that's just my opinion.
The reason that revolutions are allowed to happen is to prevent the players like myself who have no morals from giving the A.I. a few luxuries and gold per turn for a Rights of passage treaty and then waltzing next to a city that has the Colossus, Newton, Copernicus and the Pyramid and taking it over in a turn and then suing for peace. In civ 2 when we had an alliance we could freely travel in A.I. territory but when war started we were kicked out, this doesn't happen in civ 3 you just get a bad rep. To prevent you from doing this you have the culture flips. It's not worth having the bad rep if you are going to lose the city two turns later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
...wondering why those folks who hate Civ 3 so much continue posting about it.... |
Me too. That's why I decided to turn over a new leaf.
Since it was impossible to play as an empire builder on a standard size map without falling victim to carpal tunnel on the third day of finishing a turn, I moved to a small map. That way, I can build a widdy biddy empire.
And it's fun! Wheeeeeeeee!
I also stopped using captured workers since I need to finish the game this year. I sell them now for pittance to the clueless AI. Whew boy, is it in for a surprise! Happy looping!
Now, instead of the more efficient four natives and a foreigner improving my mountains, I just use five natives. Yeah, it's a waste but, hey, I get a kick out of being flung here and there as my widdle map goes into an epileptic fit, apparently taking some sort of inventory.
Wheeeeeeeee!
The upside to playing inefficiently on a diminished world is that with one less worker on my mountain, I get jerked around one less time per brigade per turn!
So, now the game is more fun! It goes like this: I tell a worker to build a road. Then I get jerked over to a worker in a forest. I can't remember what he was doing, so I just click wait. Now I'm at a transport that I upgraded last turn. Lessee, where was that mountain? Oh! There it is!
Wheeeeeeeee!
I tell the next worker to finish the road. Zap! Now I'm at a battle I forgot I was fighting! [...blush...] Oh, well. This is fun! I don't remember what my strategy was for the battle, but what the hay, this is great!
Wheeeeeeeee!
Now, where was that mountain? Oh, okay. There it is. I tell my third worker in the stack to start the railroad. Oh wow! There's that battleship I moved last turn. [...scratching head...] Which way was it headed? I can't remember. I'll just send it somewhere.
Wheeeeeeeee!
That mountain, where was it? No, that's not it. I forgot about that one! Oh, there it is! Okay, time to activate worker number four... Ooops! That's not worker number four! That's the worker in the forest that I told to wait! Darn, now I've clicked the wrong button. [...shrug...] Oh, well. I can always use a fortress in the arctic woods.
Wheeeeeeeee!
Yeah, I'm liking this diminished game and play style much better.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-12-2001 08:20
I couldnīt invent a worse rule, if I tried. 
|