|
| Thread: civilization 3 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
blanchy
Tavern Dweller
|
posted July 20, 2005 06:58 AM |
|
|
civilization 3
hey guys how many ppl here play civilization 3?
____________
No one but me can save myself, but it’s too late
Now I can’t think, think why I should even try.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted July 20, 2005 09:10 PM |
|
|
I do - the game is fun and is an enormous improvement over Civ 2 (which is one of the best strategic games ever created).
If you like Civ 3 - make sure you play Teturkan:Test of Time with 32 civilizations. And if you think you are good - try beating it on Deity level playing one of European civilizations (only 2-3 cities to start as opposed to 10-30 for some other civs, NO resources, NO room to expand and most likely - not too long before your neighbors decide to take your (not so)vast empire away from you). That is where you need to master absolutely every aspect of this game to stay alive.
____________
Vegetarian: Old Indian word for Bad Hunter.
|
|
Leo_Lion
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The 5th Element & 6th Sense!
|
posted July 21, 2005 12:11 AM |
|
|
I used to own this game, but my computer was never strong enough...still isn't actually.  Anyways, I either sold it or gave it to one of my cousins, but I don't remember which anymore.
If there's any good news that comes out of this situation, it's that Civilization 4 is almost done and will be out before Christmas 2005. 
I've heard that there will be very nice improvements to gameplay and the user-interface. Basically, it will be easier and more interesting! 
____________
*The end to no beginning...
*Take care, Leo
|
|
draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2005 04:28 PM |
|
|
|
I play Play the World occasionaly, but I prefer the simpler times of Civ1. I liked the freedom in 1, if it were made less buggy I would still buy Civ1.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted October 23, 2005 03:10 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 23 Oct 2005
|
The way of modern sequels
[At first I wanted to participate to your conversation guys, but unfortunately every time I think of the Civ series too many thoughts cross my mind and as a result some of the following are really mixed up now that I re-read what I wrote. Anyway, here you are:]
I really admire you guys for your courage on playing Civilization III. To me, this game ended up being the definition of the disappointment. Of course some great features were added like the workers unit but most of the new stuff resulted in a very slow game. (By the way, why didn't workers have an upgrade?) I must admit that I never ended a single game in CivIII (partly because my computer was slow at the time I bought the game) even though I played many games till I created a winning position. After the release of that game my whole perspective towards new computer games (more specifically sequels of long-established successful games) is far more sceptical. Sid Meier was my "god" when I was a child and I really enjoyed playing most of his early games. In those games, although graphics were worse than nearly every computer game that is sold today (and those days!  ), the user had to distinguish certain key features and try to exploit them. Moreover, the realization and exploitation of these simple features was enough so as to play an interesting and instructive game. Unfortunately, today, most games in the name of "cool graphics", "3D-animations", "rendering", "new techniques in ray-tracing", "new techniques in heuristic search in AI" and things like that, require from the user to comply with very boring ingredients of the game so as he manages a victory. And Civ3 falls exactly in this category. Of course this is by no means entirely a fault of its creators. Most companies have research departments, and if new advances are made in the area of computer graphics -especially if these advances come from company's research labs- these advances have to be implemented at least by its creators (so as to establish new paths in game programming) or due to the fact that trend in modern computer games follows that path! (A computer game, from the company's point of view, has to attract the widest possible market. It's all about money and what statistically most modern teenagers want in a computer game, so as the game can be characterized as successful and of course bring the highest possible profit to the company.)
I think Civ3 would be nicer and more popular if it had a much faster pace. If someone has to pay attention to a very wide range of elements of the game (as is the case of Civ3), so as to manage a victory of his own unique style, then saving a game is prohibited. The reason is obvious: If you don't find the time to continue the game the very next day, it is almost certain that you are going to forget some of the things you had to do on the very next turn. On the other hand, your pc-opponent will never have this problem. The save-game fills up his registers and the algorithms work effortlessly!
I know that there are many more things that someone can say but I think the above highlight the reasons of my disappointment with that game. By the way, the only truly worthy sequels I've seen so far are CivII, ImperialismII (highly recommended for those of you who haven't played it) and HeroesIII. Yet I have to admit that I was not a Heroes fun ever since the birth of the game. I met Heroes series via a friend of mine (of course it was the 3rd version! ), so I haven't really played more than a handful of games in HeroesI and HeroesII. Hence I am not a person to judge Heroes II version, as far as its success as a sequel is concerned. On the other hand, I know that HeroesIII is an improvement over Heroes II (according to my tastes) since I 've played them both and I prefer Heroes III features.
Fortunately, with the death of CivII I met the above games (HeroesIII and ImpII) and I know they will keep my attention for the forthcoming decade. Till then, I hope a new good game to appear so as to prolong my computer-gaming life. And between you and me, I don't think this game is going to be HeroesV (I wish I am wrong though)!
Regards,
Dimis
P.S.: By the way, back to the days I used to play Civ, the following sites were cool:
1st and foremost: Apolyton (I think this is the ultimate reference to the global community of Civ-addicts)
2: Civ-fanatics
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 04:59 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 24 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Of course some great features were added like the workers unit...
That's the only thing you've noticed???!!!
What about zones of control??? That was such an important piece missing in civ1&2! Someone could just build a city 2-3 hexes away from your city then declare a war cuz a unit inside that mountain fort you've just built now happens to be inside their city range.
What about finally making the trade work more like it should work? It was just stupid: you send a camel from one village and 5000 years later, those cities with millions of people in each still use that same camel to trade! that must be some hardcore camel!
Only those 2 features make this game better than its predecessors.
And what about the stupid AI in civ1&2 that traded the wheel technology for stealth sometimes?
What about the terrain changing engineers? That's just b**it. Change tundra to desert? :-O Change mountains to hills then to grassland? :-O Are they using nukes to tear those mountains down? Cuz if they are, there sure as hell won't be anything growing on those "grasslands" for a while.
What about more realistic and more numerous diplomacy options?
What about the overpowered howitzers in civ2? As soon as you discovered them, the game was over. They killed everything on their way, and because they had 2 moves, you could even land them then attack on the same turn, then just follow the railroad with the other howitzers.
Quote:
By the way, why didn't workers have an upgrade?
Actually, once you discover a certain technology, they start building 2x faster. And having workers makes more sense to me than having settlers doing all the work. They are called SETTLErs, ffs! That's all they should be doing!
Quote:
I must admit that I never ended a single game in CivIII (partly because my computer was slow at the time I bought the game) even though I played many games till I created a winning position.
Try getting a new pc, you'll love it I quit it at first because it was too slow, but I ended up playing it 24/7 on my new laptop.
Quote:
If someone has to pay attention to a very wide range of elements of the game (as is the case of Civ3), so as to manage a victory of his own unique style, then saving a game is prohibited. The reason is obvious: If you don't find the time to continue the game the very next day, it is almost certain that you are going to forget some of the things you had to do on the very next turn. On the other hand, your pc-opponent will never have this problem. The save-game fills up his registers and the algorithms work effortlessly!
You got a point here though. They overcomplicated it a bit. If you are playing with 32 civs and forgot that you were planning to sell ivory and spice to the chinese so that you could make money to steal that new technology from the Turks that they are about to discover that will allow you to finally build that new unit (for which you've already started procucing something else in your cities just so you can switch to it when you discover it) that will allow you to take that one city that has coal, you won't be able to remember all of it
|
|
tigris
Supreme Hero
Supreme Noobolator
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 05:10 PM |
|
|
civilisation 4 is bounnd to be released tomorrow 
____________
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 08:03 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 24 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course some great features were added like the workers unit...
That's the only thing you've noticed???!!!
What about zones of control??? ...
No, that's NOT the ONLY thing I 've noticed! As I said, this was an example of what I liked. And yes I liked those zones of control.
Quote:
(Refering to zones of control..) That was such an important piece missing in civ1&2! Someone could just build a city 2-3 hexes away from your city then declare a war cuz a unit inside that mountain fort you've just built now happens to be inside their city range.
Sorry, but I don't see your point here. (Seems that we prefer zones of control for slightly different reasons. Of course our styles are surely different when playing Civ2.) They always warn you before setting up a war against you. It's up to you whether you want a war or not. If not, you simply order the unit to go back to your terittory. If you do want a war however, the advice is to be bully against them so that they 'not tolerate' you any longer!
Quote:
What about finally making the trade work more like it should work? It was just stupid: you send a camel from one village and 5000 years later, those cities with millions of people in each still use that same camel to trade! that must be some hardcore camel!
Only those 2 features make this game better than its predecessors.
Ok, one by one ... What you made once with a camel was ESTABLISHING a trade route! So I don't see where's the problem. Not to mention that the map was much "cleaner" on civ2 rather on civ3 when establishing routes.
Quote:
And what about the stupid AI in civ1&2 that traded the wheel technology for stealth sometimes?
I believe you mean that:
AI had knowledge of stealth but you didn't, so you offered them the wheel in exchange for stealth. Before this trade, who had an advantage? I think the 'stupid' AI. Of course I can agree with you that the trade was stupid, but after all, it was necessery for the AI to continue it's scientific development. So it seems rather mandatory.
Quote:
What about the terrain changing engineers? That's just b**it. Change tundra to desert? :-O Change mountains to hills then to grassland? :-O Are they using nukes to tear those mountains down? Cuz if they are, there sure as hell won't be anything growing on those "grasslands" for a while.
Ok. What's the reason for Future Technologies? Perhaps, in the near future this can really happen in this small village called earth. I don't see your point. sorry ... Not to mention, that on some maps this was the only way of generating as high as possible your score! By the way, one small question:
"What bug (among others) did civ2 have when building new cities"? Hint: It was number-oriented!
Quote:
What about more realistic and more numerous diplomacy options?
Yes, this is another (from the 'some' - see above) feature I liked in one way. On another way, this feature resulted in longer games, where you come to agree with me that it is a problem.
Quote:
What about the overpowered howitzers in civ2? As soon as you discovered them, the game was over. They killed everything on their way, and because they had 2 moves, you could even land them then attack on the same turn, then just follow the railroad with the other howitzers.
I can't see what you are proposing. It was a good attacking piece, yet not undefeatable. Now, here is a true improvement that you forgot to mention: In civ3 a stack of war pieces was diminished, if only you could attack and win the defending unit (of course I assume no presence of forts). So Howitzers, had to be protected very well, and many could be lost ...
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, why didn't workers have an upgrade?
Actually, once you discover a certain technology, they start building 2x faster. And having workers makes more sense to me than having settlers doing all the work. They are called SETTLErs, ffs! That's all they should be doing!
First of all, I agree with you that Settlers was not the unit that had to build roads. That's the reason I wrote about workers above... On the other hand, do roads nowdays, take only half the time to be built than in ancient era? Of course not. However, on civ2, settlers were building faster roads and that was good. And this resulted in quicker games! (so another point goes to civ2 here)
Quote:
Quote:
I must admit that I never ended a single game in CivIII (partly because my computer was slow at the time I bought the game) even though I played many games till I created a winning position.
Try getting a new pc, you'll love it I quit it at first because it was too slow, but I ended up playing it 24/7 on my new laptop.
Well I bought a new pc, but I don't bother anymore to play civ3. If I were to play Civilization, it would be 2 again...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the rest, it seems that you agree with me. I know I won't convince you, but these are my beliefs. Civ2 is far better to my eyes than Civ3.
One more edit: Same applies to civ1 as well.
Regards,
Dimitris
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 08:16 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 24 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
civilisation 4 is bounnd to be released tomorrow
Thx for the info Tigris! I believe I should watch out on stores soon! Let's hope this one is better!
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 24, 2005 09:13 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 24 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Sorry, but I don't see your point here. (Seems that we prefer zones of control for slightly different reasons. Of course our styles are surely different when playing Civ2.) They always warn you before setting up a war against you. It's up to you whether you want a war or not. If not, you simply order the unit to go back to your terittory. If you do want a war however, the advice is to be bully against them so that they 'not tolerate' you any longer!
Well, I built a fort using MY settler. and it was built on MY land. and obviously it is built in a great strategic location. I did not move my unit to the AI's city, so it is not an act of aggression, yet AI treats it as one. Also if he builds a city near you, he can take your resources, etc. With strict zones of control in civ 3 all of those problems are removed. Not to mention many other benefits of zones.
You say that you can't lose many howitzers? Not really. You can't place 100 defenders in ALL of of your cities. So, about 4-5 howitzers will take out all of your mechanized infantries in one city, then when you capture it the transoprts move in and viola - you have 8 fresh howitzers per transport with 2 moves each to take the rest. And even though mechanized infantries are supposed to be the best defenders, they don't stand a chance against howitzers. Which is bull**it, because in most military books they state 3:1 as acceptable losses when attacking an equally armed opponent. But in civ2 this is not the case. You can destroy a big civilization with about 20-40 howitzers. 2 attacks each. This comes down to 40-80 defenders down per turn. Even if you don't destroy the entire civilization in 1 single turn, you pretty much reduce them to nothing.
In civ3 the defenders have an advantage at any era, so you have to plan each attack carefully, and balance the use of navy, artillery, air force and ground units instead of just building howitzers.
And the artillery bombardment does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is: weakening the unit, instead of completely destroying it. After a successful bombardment you will still need to go in with your ground forces (NOT your artillery!!!) to destroy the weakened city guards that have civil defense+fortification+radar tower bonus.
Oh, and don't even get me started on inciting a revolt in a small but heavily guarded city for only 20 gold pieces.
Well, either way, I don't even know why I am typing this, because you've already made up your mind.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 01:10 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 25 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Well, I built a fort using MY settler. and it was built on MY land. and obviously it is built in a great strategic location. I did not move my unit to the AI's city, so it is not an act of aggression, yet AI treats it as one. Also if he builds a city near you, he can take your resources, etc. With strict zones of control in civ 3 all of those problems are removed. Not to mention many other benefits of zones.
I see you have a point on that. However you are allowed to do the same thing against AI. And it is my general belief that if ALL parties have to face the same problem, then the problem is diminished. On the other hand, as I stated above, I like zones of control (I think it is the same as the zone of your cultural influence - correct me if I am wrong).
Quote:
You say that you can't lose many howitzers? Not really. You can't place 100 defenders in ALL of of your cities. So, about 4-5 howitzers will take out all of your mechanized infantries in one city, then when you capture it the transoprts move in and viola - you have 8 fresh howitzers per transport with 2 moves each to take the rest. And even though mechanized infantries are supposed to be the best defenders, they don't stand a chance against howitzers. Which is bull**it, because in most military books they state 3:1 as acceptable losses when attacking an equally armed opponent. But in civ2 this is not the case. You can destroy a big civilization with about 20-40 howitzers. 2 attacks each. This comes down to 40-80 defenders down per turn. Even if you don't destroy the entire civilization in 1 single turn, you pretty much reduce them to nothing.
Why let them land on your area on the first place? However, I don't agree when people want the entire game to be as close to reality as it gets. It is just a game and simple things are far more preferable to my tastes. Anyway, the number of cities, along with the entire population on the whole map, does not represent reality (which is good for timinig reasons I 've explained). So why should the number of troops represent reality? After all, "if you want peace ... prepare for war!" Capture your strategic locations in the nearby passages and you are ok. Finally, I can not argue too much on Howitzers, partly because the game is over around 200 years before their existance. As I said, it's a matter of your game playing style. Let me give you some examples:
There are two routes to your victory:
1) Conquer the entire world.
2) Peaceful ending by sending a spaceship to Alpha Centauri (which is what I prefer).
If you choose the second one, you can even end up a game with at most one or two wars during the centuries or even no war at all. You just enlighten up your people and keep them happy to have more children! In the long run, you will have a healthy empire which has great statistical numbers on productivity and things like that. Anyway, since it seems you like the first way to victory I 'll shortly give (a rough approximation of) the goals and make you realize that Howitzers come around very-very late:
a) Number one priority = Phalanx => Go for Bronze working.
b) Number two priority = Establish Monarchy => Set the goal and follow the route.
c) Number three priority = Statue of Liberty built at around 1000 AD.
d) Number four priority = Immediately shift to Fundamentalism so that you have the most production you may have and generate legions of unstoppable troops (I think it is Knights and those white horses that I don't remember their names right now (edit: - I think they are called Dragoons ...) Near the end of the Fundamentalism you may have many good troops but certainly not Howitzers). Around 1700-1800 AD you should have cleared up the entire world and you are free to colonize earth/map by placing cities on optimal locations.
[Priority number three is in bold, because this is your primary aim in accomplishing a conquest!]
By the way, so that I know how much you have played the game, can you give me an example of your highscore?
(I suppose you have finished one game! )
As for the Civ3, my technique was eventually the following:
Build "temporary" cities from ancient time to modern time, so that you can "draft" people and increase your production. A friend of mine who had a good computer at that time followed that strategy and it turned out that by around 1300~1400AD he could launch his spaceship. Now, is that closer to reality? Of course I don't care if it is or if it is not, but since you like this kind of relationship, there you go ...
Quote:
In civ3 the defenders have an advantage at any era, so you have to plan each attack carefully, and balance the use of navy, artillery, air force and ground units instead of just building howitzers.
And the artillery bombardment does exactly what it is supposed to do, which is: weakening the unit, instead of completely destroying it. After a successful bombardment you will still need to go in with your ground forces (NOT your artillery!!!) to destroy the weakened city guards that have civil defense+fortification+radar tower bonus.
Oh, and don't even get me started on inciting a revolt in a small but heavily guarded city for only 20 gold pieces.
The fact that defenders had an advantage was one more thing that I liked in Civ3. However, they overdid it with that feature and cities turned out to be almost inpenetratable. And as for the bombardment, it is a matter of taste and how much you agree for a game NOT to represent reality. Of course, you agree on a large extent to that since you play Heroes! 
Quote:
Well, either way, I don't even know why I am typing this, because you've already made up your mind.
You can try convincing me, but I don't think it is the case. The problem is that, while in Heroes (and Civ3) I am a n00b , I am (edit: used to be) a vet on Civ2 (compared to what's being said/highscores/etc on the Internet) (edit: but can still play well).
Good morning,
Dimis
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 05:22 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 25 Oct 2005
|
Yes, your cultural influence determines your empire's area.
Quote:
And it is my general belief that if ALL parties have to face the same problem, then the problem is diminished.
Well, if a game has a bug or an imbalance, everyone has to face it, so according to this logic, developers should never fix any bugs.
Quote:
If you choose the second one, you can even end up a game with at most one or two wars during the centuries or even no war at all. You just enlighten up your people and keep them happy to have more children! In the long run, you will have a healthy empire which has great statistical numbers on productivity and things like that.
1 or 2 wars before you send your space ship? You've never played on deity, have you?
And military victory is not a challenge, even on deity level. And no, I don't like it. I don't like the fact that it is way way way too easy. You don't even need fundamentalism and you don't need science, because you'll capture technologies from your enemies. Occasionally you can win a military victory as early as 2000 B.C. if everyone starts on the same continent.
Now - building a spaceship when you play on deity without reloads and without attacking anyone or capturing any enemy cities during the war is a BIG challenge. This is where those mountain forts really come into play because they protect you from sneak attacks. And this is exactly why AI building cities near your forts is so inconvenient. Because if you don't remove the troops, computer will attack and by that time they all ally against you, so you don't want that. And if you do remove it, their sneak attack will be much harder to prevent.
Btw, the reason I mentioned howitzers is because when I play scenarios, everyone has pretty much equal technologies that often include howitzers. So, there is only 1 tactic: 1) build railroad to their city or build transoprts. 2) Howitzers all the way.
By the way, what exactly do you mean by "temporary cities"? And what do you mean by "drafting people"? You can actually draft citizens in the army during the war after discovering nationalism, but I am assuming that this isn't what you are talking about.
Well, either way, if you think you have civ 3 figured out - play Teturkan:Test of Time with prebuilt cities as one of european civilizations on deity difficulty.
I recommend playing Spanish or French as they are the weakest. English is a good option too, but they actually have the room to build the 3-rd city and they aren't connected to the rest by land, so you won't have wave after wave of 100 impi warriors or archers attacking you every turn.
For now - just set your goal to making it to 1400 A.D. And I assure you, that you won't be anywhere near sending spaceships at that year. You'll be spending all your efforts trying to prevent those Germans and Hungarians from taking over your pigs (You'll know what I am talking about when you play the map).
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 08:35 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 25 Oct 2005
|
ok... I 'll go on reading your previous post, but all I am saying refers to deity. I am talking about highscores around 2000% (yes, three digits - it was not a mistake )
I believe you can realize on that that there is a 'minor' gap on our game-playing. As for the bug I was talking about 2 posts earlier: You can not build more than 2^8 = 256 cities.
I'll re-edit the post when I finish reading yours. Oh, by the way, that spaceship launch I said on Civ3 that occurred around 1400 AD was on Deity level also ...
Oh, and I am referring as well to no reloads as well as the largest map available ...
I told you however that regarding Civ3 I am a n00b. Why don't you accept the same for you on Civ2? I am saying this in a polite manner and don't want to offend you in any way.
Regards,
Dimis
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 08:59 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 25 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Yes, your cultural influence determines your empire's area.
Quote:
And it is my general belief that if ALL parties have to face the same problem, then the problem is diminished.
Well, if a game has a bug or an imbalance, everyone has to face it, so according to this logic, developers should never fix any bugs.
Obviously you don't want to realize what I am saying about cultural zones. Moreover, developers should fix problematic situations, however, these can not be horrific problems because both players can exploit the same problem! But as I said, it was something good on Civ3.
Quote:
Quote:
If you choose the second one, you can even end up a game with at most one or two wars during the centuries or even no war at all. You just enlighten up your people and keep them happy to have more children! In the long run, you will have a healthy empire which has great statistical numbers on productivity and things like that.
1 or 2 wars before you send your space ship? You've never played on deity, have you?
And military victory ...
Now - building a spaceship when you play on deity without reloads ...
As I said, I play only on Deity. No reloads and on largest map available (don't remember how they are called). Anyway, military victory is very tough because it actually urges you to go for highscore since you can colonize everything right where you want. But in order your freshly built cities reach their maximum capacity you need many turns. And just for safety reasons, it would be nice to have 150-200 years (turns) of development. That's why you need Fundamentalism. Try to build Statue of Liberty before 1000AD. I assure you it is a challenge. However, when you actually make it, your army will be unstoppable.
As for the spaceship victory, it is not so difficult. Just keep one continent for yourself only and at least 13-14 cities on it. You are victorious with correct micro-management and ... pressing end-of-turn.
Quote:
By the way, what exactly do you mean by "temporary cities"? And what do you mean by "drafting people"? You can actually draft citizens in the army during the war after discovering nationalism, but I am assuming that this isn't what you are talking about.
I mean rushing your buildings. But eventually you have to disband the city since you have to face riots (or whatever they are called).
Quote:
Well, either way, if you think you have civ 3 figured out - play Teturkan:Test of Time with prebuilt cities as one of european civilizations on deity difficulty.
I recommend playing ...
I don't have figured it out with Civ3. That's why I am still talking to you! Yet, this game held sometime my greatest expectations. Unfortunately, it turned out that could not attract my attention. I hope Civ4 can do that, yet I strongly doubt about that. As for playing. No sorry. No way. If I am to play Civilization, it will be 2 again and again and again and again and .... and again and again ...
As for the scenarios. I am hardly ever interested on any game. I want to start everything from scratch.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ok... I 'll go on reading your previous post, but all I am saying refers to deity. I am talking about highscores around 2000% (yes, three digits - it was not a mistake )
I believe you can realize on that that there is a 'minor' gap on our game-playing. As for the bug I was talking about 2 posts earlier: You can not build more than 2^8 = 256 cities.
I'll re-edit the post when I finish reading yours. Oh, by the way, that spaceship launch I said on Civ3 that occurred around 1400 AD was on Deity level also ...
I told you however that regarding Civ3 I am a n00b. Why don't you accept the same for you on Civ2? I am saying this in a polite manner and don't want to offend you in any way.
I am not civ 2 noob by any chance. Just because I've never had 256 cities, doesn't mean I am a noob.
However, when you say that it is possible to AVOID wars when going for the spaceship victory in civ2 on deity without ever reloading, you do sound like one. If you are the most powerful empire on deity difficulty, then after a while every AI player will hate you and use every possible opportunity to attack you. Or they'll just sneak attack. This gets better when you build a nuke, but until then your AI relations are crap.
There's nothing complicated about building spaceship in civ2 by that year, I think I did it earlier a few times, but most likely I lost those saves, so I could be wrong. In civ 2 it is possible to get an invention every turn with democracy even on the deity level if you set up 3 good trade routes in every city and if you have all the right wonders built. If you are doing an impure space victory and capture a few cities early on, this will speed it up even more.
In civ3 this isn't hard either. You can win with your eyes closed. FFS, I played my first civ3 game on deity with 8 civs and I still won it, lol.
But if you like challenge - do what I suggested and play 32 civs Teturkan: Test of Time with prebuilt cities as one of European civilizations. I recommend French or Spanish. It is also highly recommended to have at least 3000+ Mhz CPU with 512 or more ram. I have AMD 64 and AI turns still took several mins later on.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 09:26 PM |
|
Edited By: dimis on 25 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
I am not civ 2 noob by any chance. Just because I've never had 256 cities, doesn't mean I am a noob.
However, when you say that it is possible to AVOID wars when going for the spaceship victory in civ2 on deity without ever reloading, you do sound like one. If you are the most powerful empire on deity difficulty, then after a while every AI player will hate you and use every possible opportunity to attack you. Or they'll just sneak attack. This gets better when you build a nuke, but until then your AI relations are crap.
You are correct on that one. So when you really want a 'peaceful' victory, the key is to be 2nd best! If it turns out that you are the best and this is irreversible then, you are going to face the war you are saying. Now, near the end of the game (spaceship almost complete) you can be the first. You 'll sustain everything since your spaceship can not be intercepted! As I said from the very beginning it's an entirely different approach on the game we have.
Quote:
There's nothing complicated about building spaceship in civ2 by that year, I think I did it earlier a few times, but most likely I lost those saves, so I could be wrong.
By what year? I never mentioned a year for civ2 on your spaceship launch!
Quote:
In civ3 this isn't hard either. You can win with your eyes closed. FFS, I played my first civ3 game on deity with 8 civs and I still won it, lol.
Am I allowed to doubt about that one? I remember that in the first few days of the release of the game all of us civ-addicts had tremendous problems and we really had to put much effort to win the game I think two steps lower from deity ... I remember that I played my first game on King and I lost it.
Quote:
But if you like challenge - do what I suggested and play 32 civs Teturkan: Test of Time with prebuilt cities as one of European civilizations. I recommend French or Spanish. It is also highly recommended to have at least 3000+ Mhz CPU with 512 or more ram. I have AMD 64 and AI turns still took several mins later on.
As I said, I don't like scenarios. They have never attracted my attention. Perhaps sometime in the future, but certainly not before summer...
Thank you for your tips, but I can not give it a try! You see, there is always a minor chance that you are correct on what you are proposing and the game can become very addicted! But that would be the end of my ... self/life!
edit: I forgot to say goodnight! See ya!
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 25, 2005 10:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 26 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Am I allowed to doubt about that one? I remember that in the first few days of the release of the game all of us civ-addicts had tremendous problems and we really had to put much effort to win the game I think two steps lower from deity ... I remember that I played my first game on King and I lost it.
Nope, lol, you are not allowed. When I started civ 3 I was going to chose something in the middle, but then I decided that if I want to give this game a chance, I'll have to let it beat me in deity when I am a noob
So, there I was playing on deity. But I guess I did well because I knew a lot back from civ 2 and I spent like an hour reading civilopedia during my first turns. Oh, and I may have gotten a bit lucky - I had spice and incense within my city border and another luxury only 1 screen away from it. Also, I had an isolated area with a narrow passage up north leading to Iroques and 2 other civs on other sides of the passage who happened to be peaceful. I think they got aggressive around 2000 B.C. so I had to kill them with swordsmen and catapults. Then I killed someone else with cavalries and 2 cavalry armies (I forgot exactly how those are called - they have 6 attack/3 defense/3 moves) and finished off the rest with battleships and f-16s bombing the cities followed by assaults with tank and advanced tank armies. I also got lucky there - I had a city with Iron Works that produced an army every 2-nd or 3-rd turn.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 26, 2005 12:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Am I allowed to doubt about that one? ...
Nope, lol, you are not allowed. When I started civ 3 I was going to chose something in the middle, but then I decided that if I want to give this game a chance, I'll have to let it beat me in deity when I am a noob
So, there I was playing on deity. But I guess I did well because I knew a lot back from civ 2 and I spent like an hour reading civilopedia during my first turns. Oh, and I may have gotten a bit lucky ... and 2 other civs on other sides of the passage who happened to be peaceful. ... I also got lucky there ...
Well, actually I wasn't asking for your permission on my doubts! I thought this could show you that you are over-saying things. As for the rest seems you are the perfect player on Civ3 from the very first game since as I can remember the first couple of weeks no-one was able to report a win on this game on deity... However, you managed it from your very first one! Congrats. Oh, ... you were lucky on your first game... I forgot! I believe this conversation is close to an end.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 26, 2005 05:24 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 26 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
As for the rest seems you are the perfect player on Civ3
Well, not exactly. Remember I told you about playing Teturkan:Test of Time with 32 civs as one of European civs? Well, I never actually won it. I played as French on deity and I stopped playing because I knew I had almost no chance of winning it.
Btw, I noticed a lot of negativity in your last post just because I seemed to do better than you in some computer game. You remind me of all the noobs in HOMM, Unreal Tournament and pretty much any other game who start saying "you cheat" when they lose really bad to some vet. I don't blame you as I did it myself a few years ago.
I bet you also have that same kind of attutude towards those players who say they broke into the treasure area on jebus on week 1? Just because you can't do it doesn't mean nobody can. Face it, you are not perfect. No matter how good you are at something, chances are there is always someone better. I bet there are people who finished civ 2 and 3 1000 years earlier than I ever did. So what? I won't lose sleep over it.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 27, 2005 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Btw, I noticed a lot of negativity in your last post just because I seemed to do better than you in some computer game. You remind me of all the noobs in HOMM, Unreal Tournament and pretty much any other game who start saying "you cheat" when they lose really bad to some vet. I don't blame you as I did it myself a few years ago.
I bet you also have that same kind of attutude towards those players who say they broke into the treasure area on jebus on week 1? Just because you can't do it doesn't mean nobody can. Face it, you are not perfect. No matter how good you are at something, chances are there is always someone better. I bet there are people who finished civ 2 and 3 1000 years earlier than I ever did. So what? I won't lose sleep over it.
Dear Russ,
I was talking about facts, while you were describing just stories on all the above posts. I find it really pointless on getting along to a conversation that you don't want to be a conversation. I even asked you to propose me some kind of techniques for Civ3 but you really never gave me some goals. I also said that I am a n00b on Civ3 and hence far worse player than you (I don't know how can I be clearer on that). So the conclusion is only one to me: Either you don't understand what I write, or the symbols I press seem differently on your computer screen! As for Civ2, sorry man, but my judgements are the same as yours towards me. I believe that your posts are self-explanatory.
As for your ethical-tips, thanks, but I won't buy. I believe that the time has passed for myself. Perhaps I should have met you 10+ years earlier when I was a teenager, so that I can be a better person.
Have a nice day and enjoy your trip!
|
| |
|
|
