 |
| |
|
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
The fact that the computer civs obviously trades tech advances to give it an unfair advantage is bad enough. This is the worst part. I go to war with cavalry attacking and riflemen defending. My veteran and elite cav can not get past pikemen and phalanxs. Meanwhile, the enemy regular cav mows down my veteran riflemen. The fact that you are not playing against 7 other civs, but really one computer opponent controling the 7 other civs. Most of my games end with me losing against the computer, because the computer goes to war in round-robin fashion. When one civ has had enough, somebody else goes to war. Meanwhile, I do not declare war on anybody. Everytime, a patch comes out I try and play the game, but it is the same crap. This has been the situation since the beginging. No one has bothered to fix this. I used to really like Sid games, civ/civ2/smac/covert action, and a few others. Really good games. But civ3 sucks, and the sid name is now mud. Allowing the AI to cheat and have an unfair advantage is no excuse for having bad AI. Heck the AI even knows where the end game resources are going to be before they pop-up. I.E. uranium/oil/coal/rubber.
The CIV3 programmers may have tricked some people, but it should be obvious what is really going on here.
Anyways, now that I have vented on civ3, I will wait for another patch to hopefully fix what has been wrong with the game since the beginning. But I am not holding my breath.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
That does not explain how the other civs so readily trade techs with one another and not with the player. Either trade fairly with everyone, or rip everybody off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
Sorry that does not make sense to me. Why the AI would have been programed like that is beyond me. Just one more complaint is that the computer never trades fairly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Artifex
|
|
Kentucky USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
The ai knows where all the goodie huts are and all the barbarian camps. They seek them out like heat seeking missles. They also trade techs to each other for pennies on the dollar all the while not considering trading with you. SO the AI does cheat no doubt about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
miike,
Do not take this as an insult, please. I went through the very same what you are experiencing, just that I was too stubborn to give up. Believe me that what you think is a game flaw is ENTIRELY a matter of not mastering the game (and in some cases, apparently just bad luck). Civ3 really is a difficult game, especially for people who played Civ2 a lot and later tried to use their Civ2 strategies in Civ3 (like I did).
It's been a couple of weeks since we were discussing the problem of AIs "ganging up" on the human player here in the forums. I believe I am not lying if I say that the common consent eventually was that what humans tend to interpret as "AIs ganging up on the human player" is in fact a consequence of two vital concepts that seem to determine the AI policy with respect to wars, alliances, pacts etc.
1) AIs are likely to gang up on the current leader (most probably because it is the civ most likely to win the game - by stopping/crippling it, other civs are improving their chances to win the game instead).
2) AIs are likely to gang up on weak(ened) civs (most probably because getting involved in such conflicts means grabbing new land easily).
I have won seven full-scale 8-civ Regent level games on Standard maps so far (playing different civs). I have lost or given up about ten times more... however, out of my last five games started, I have won three, IIRC. I have spent something like 300-400+ hours playing Civ3 and I am absolutely sure that the AI civs are NOT controlled by a single AI coordinating them. They do such awful things to one another... and they are pretty easy to join your war efforts if it is advantageous for them.
Try to assume that they do not play as one team. Look at their actions with no bias - and I am sure that you will realize they behave like a pack of wolves.
Also, as for the cheating... yes, it is publicly known that the AI cheats quite a bit. Without the cheating, it would be a very poor opponent (Soren - the guy who wrote the AI - said so, IIRC). However, this cheating is really just enough to make it fairly competitive on the Regent level...
I suggest you relax a bit, read through various threads especially in the Strategy forum and then start playing Civ3 with an open mind. Try this and that, leave strategies that do not work, develop and improve those that do. I assure you it is one hell of a game. One with the best AI I have ever seen (this is not to say that the Civ3 AI would be such a great one, but it is the best one I have seen - other games do not have AIs half that fine). One of the most difficult to win, IMHO.
My post is not meant to tell you "you dumb greenhorn, can't you recognize a great game?". It is meant to tell you "Don't wait for more patches, you are and would probably forever be missing an awesome game. Just spend some time experimenting, testing, and learning. Do not expect to win from the very beginning."
If you still end up in hopeless positions, feel free to post your savegames here in the forums. I bet there will always be somebody willing to review them and offer advice on how to improve your playing skills and eventually start winning.
Regards,
Radek
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MattHiggs
|
|
Hopefully there will be no more games released as crap as Civ3
|
|
| |
|
|
|
reefer addict
|
 |
oregon
Sep 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
i cant win so the game sucks?
ive beaten emperor already and im no rocket scientist.
the ai cheats, nobody is saying it doesnt, but if it didnt everyone would beat deity in the first month and shelve the game. im glad that 8 months after civ3's release i still have a challenge to win, while many people have already mastered deity.
if you find the game to hard and unfair, play on cheiftan level, there you will get the bonuses and the ai will be handicapped.
if your losing badly at cheiftan, then maybe civ3 is a little to much for you
and if you think the computer is tough on you, then dont get the multi-player version when it comes out, because youll be shocked to see human players mow you down without a care.
firaxis, thank you for a difficult game that still challenges me, some people want to win without investing any time and strategy, but i love it
|
|
| |
|
|
|
miike
|
|
DFW Texas.
Aug 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
Damn. Even I have to agree with Vondrak. Though I don't like the fact that the AI cheats. In my opinion, AI cheating does not make up for poor AI. Oh well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Murray
|
|
The whole game is based on luck. If you get a good starting position - I find myself surrounded by desert, jungle and mountains most of the time - and you are able to section off a sizeable piece of land for yourself, at the same time outpacing the computer in research, building a large army, attending to culture and dealing with overwhelming corruption (I almost forgot to mention dealing with random barbarian attacks that kill your workers and settlers), then you will do well. Not only that, but you will really enjoy the game. I find that I win about one in every 10-15 games I start at Regent, and even although the 14 I abandon make me hate the game intensely, the one game that I manage to finish makes me want to keep trying. And I think that, unless you are one of the (probably) tiny number of people who can sit and play any Civ3 game at Monarch or above, you will find that it simply comes down to luck most of the time. (Take a look at the combat system, for example.)
Now, take a game like Age of Empires 2 or even Grand Theft Auto 3. Now THOSE are games that are always guaranteed to please 100 percent, every time you play.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Murray
The whole game is based on luck. If you get a good starting position . . . |
No argument that a good starting position is very helpful. But to say the whole game is based on luck is just silly. Player skill plays by far the largest role in game success at various levels.
quote:
. . . and you are able to section off a sizeable piece of land for yourself, at the same time outpacing the computer in research, building a large army, attending to culture and dealing with overwhelming corruption (I almost forgot to mention dealing with random barbarian attacks that kill your workers and settlers), then you will do well. |
All of these factors sound like they are most influenced by player skill rather than luck to me.
quote:
I find that I win about one in every 10-15 games I start at Regent, and even although the 14 I abandon make me hate the game intensely, the one game that I manage to finish makes me want to keep trying. And I think that, unless you are one of the (probably) tiny number of people who can sit and play any Civ3 game at Monarch or above, you will find that it simply comes down to luck most of the time. |
I really encourage you to keep trying. Since you didn't just quit the game when it refused to roll over for you, than you've still got a wonderful opportunity to get an awful lot of fun play time out of this challenging game.
Read a lot of threads here and in the Strategy Forum. These boards are littered with posters who faced the same challenges / frustrations that you're facing, but now count themselves among the (not so tiny) number of folks who play above Regent regularly.
Spend some time looking around here a bit and you may yet find that you come to enjoy Civ 3 more than AoE or GTA.
Catt 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Murray
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
No argument that a good starting position is very helpful. But to say the whole game is based on luck is just silly. Player skill plays by far the largest role in game success at various levels.
All of these factors sound like they are most influenced by player skill rather than luck to me. |
Perhaps. I have played this game for hours and hours ever since I got it - on one occasion from 6pm until 10am the following day. I must just be a terrible player because I rarely finish a game successfully.
But I still think that a lot of the game comes down to luck. Other than starting position, things such as resources, outcomes of barbarian villages, combat results (esp. when fighting units with similar stats), proximity of other civs, etc can't be determined by skill. Now compare that to Age of Empires - everyone starts off the same. That is to say, there is never any chance that a player is denied access to resources in AOE2 (and even when resources like gold run out, they can trade excess goods like food or wood for scare resources like gold and stone at the market). One knows exactly when resources run out in AOE2 because the remaining quantity of resources is visible. In Civ3, resources disappear randomly and infuriatingly. In Civ3, combat results often seem utterly random. But in more refined games like AOE2, one can employ combined arms and have a far better idea of how one's army will perform.
I prefer the concept of Civ3 over AOE2, so i'm not biased here. I just don't think Civ3 delivers like AOE2 does. Of course you can be very skilful with Civ3 but it's a heck of a lot harder to master than any other strategy or action game I've ever played.
I've managed to win four regent games now, they kept me up for hours on end and they were all incredibly enjoyable. The strategy forum here has been very, very useful. But I don't feel that any amount of strategy will make up for some of the parts of Civ3 which are ostensibly unduly influenced by luck and randomness.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2002 13:55
|