Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Civ 3 is hard

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I have never even got to modern times with Civ 3. Just takes too long to
get the advances.
Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
usually the only iron is in another civ's area.
civ 2 was much easier.

More about : civ hard

Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:50:48 +1100, persifor@pyramid.com (Persifor)
wrote:

>I have never even got to modern times with Civ 3. Just takes too long to
>get the advances.
>Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
>usually the only iron is in another civ's area.
>civ 2 was much easier.

In Civ3 you have to be more aggressive than in Civ2, "early-expansion"
is a must to get more land. Use Persia and Immortals or Rome and
Legions, it is much more easier then. Invent Iron Working before
anything else and send settler immediately to iron source (if any)
when you see one.

Yep, there's much more :)  try finding strategy guide if you like.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Build more cities
Build more roads
Build more libraries
Build more marketplaces
Build more universities
aquire more unique luxaries and trade for more.
keep the luxary slider at 0% except in specal circumstances
Build more courthouses in benifital areas

Vanilla / PTW: Build FP as far as possible from the palace in which it
would actually be built in a reasonale timeframe.

Conquests: Get 1.22 patch and build the FP as fast as possible in a
city neither too close nor too far from the capital. If you aquire a
free settler and build it near where you found it, that may be the best
location.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:50:48 +1100, persifor@pyramid.com (Persifor)
wrote:

>I have never even got to modern times with Civ 3. Just takes too long to
>get the advances.

Civ3 makes tech advances harder to get than Civ2 in many ways. In
order to deal with that, the first thing is that your civilization
needs a *lot* more development in order to be productive
scientifically.

All worked squares need roads for commerce.
Luxuries are needed to keep people happy -- at least four, and later
in the game you should try to get all of them.
Switching governments is essential. Republic is the best for early
science, with Monarchy less so but better for war.

By far, though, the biggest difference is the effectiveness of
trading tech and other things. Each tech you get by trade is one you
*don't* have to research, so aggressive trading is essential in order
to maximize your advance. Even if you should be leading the world in
technology, you need to sell it to others in order to get extra gold
(or other things) to maximize your empire's production.

>Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
>usually the only iron is in another civ's area.

That is another reason for trading. Or war, if you prefer to take
rather than trade.

Aggressive expansion to get lots of territory is another way. You
might not get all the resources even so, but the more land you have,
and the more terrain types, the better the odds that you'll have them
in your territory.

>civ 2 was much easier.

Sure. But that is part of the fun. Civ2 got to be too easy, so
Civ3 changes that. It is never possible to rush advances as fast as
Civ2 allowed, but it is still possible in Civ3 to run well in advance
of the timeline of the real world.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Resource and Luxary frequency are moddable.

But in the case of luxaries, it's noteworthy that each major version
(Vanilla, PTW, Conquests), the stock rules all reduced luxaries. Oil
might be slightly more common and all the other stregic resources very
slightly less so with the new "Mash" and "volcano" terraign types.
(Would also have a side effect of reducing all luxaries)

I forgot to mention to govt choices:

Non-religious: Decide ASAP if your going to spend the late ancient era
/ early middle ages in a very long offensive war(s) or else in internal
development. (The internal development plan can contain wars as long as
they are short.) Note that pre-conquests, non religious anarchy for
humans was random range between 4 and 8. Post Conquests, it's
semi-random between 5 and 9 turns. Size of empire will determine
weather 5, 6, or 7 is your base. And the RNG will determine weather to
add 0, 1, or 2.

Peaceful route (w optional short wars to aquire luxaries / resources):
Go to Republic as soon as your economy can support this. Under stock
rules, Pre-Conquests, this is a function of roaded worked tiles + a few
market places for the military support costs. Post-Conquests, this is
also greatly dependent upon number of size 7+ cites, which in turn
means that # of cities with their own free aquaduct matter, especally
when non-agricultural. In either case, you also need access to luxaries
in Republic to maintaign order. I'd recommend wars to take direct
control over more luxaries if you have only one type or none from
REXing regardless of how the strategic resources came up. At three plus
types, I'd be more incliended for minimum military needed to discourage
AI aggression and be peaceful assuming I had Iron + strong possibility
of Coal, and resonable quality land. And at two, I'd be indifferent on
the basis of luxaries alone and when decide based on stregtic resources
and/or general quality of land.

Big wars (conquering entire civs / wars to aquire techs at a major
discount): Pre-conquests: Go Monarchy ASAP. Be on a war footing up thru
discovery of Democracy, since it's way too much anarchy when non
religious to go thru something else on the way to Republic.
Post-Conquests, much of the same applies, except in some cases you may
want to choose Feudalism instead. (Such as virtual lack of fresh
aquaducts in your core) In this case, bypass most of the optional techs
including both govt ones to get to middle ages (and your Fedulaism)
govt ASAP.

Religious civs are free to switch govts frequently. (One turn anarchy
pre-conquests, two turns anrchy post-conquests)

How much luxaries to get: 3+. which is the minimum that Market Places
also help happiness. 4 and 5 would clearly help, so trade for those if
you don't have them naturally. Starting with 6 though, trading for it
may not be worth it. Depends highly upon how many additional cities
would be in WLTPD. There are definately cases where a 6th luxary does
your empire no good unless you also have a 7th because no city in your
empire would be in either WLTPD or disorder at 5 luxaries or 6
luxaries, but at 7 there would be several cities with WLTPD.

Note that all my guideless above apply to stock rules. The indivual
Conquests within conquests have their own unique settings that call for
different action.

Meopotiania: Building of wonders highly rewarded. Non-Religious govt
plans. One switch : Despotism

Rise of Rome: Lots of land grabbing needed to win. (Both from building
new cities and conquering your oppoents.) Non-religious govt plans.
One switch : Imperalism

Fall of Rome: Time is initally on the Barb side for them to build up,
get better barb units. But evenually the culture from the Romes starts
mattering, and time becomes on Romes side. Don't change govts.

Middle Ages: Rewards conquests. (Both direct and also the aquiring of
other treasure units and conquering Jersuleum to deliver them.) Already
in best govt.

Meso America: In this conquest, Achiving the one city culture victory
is helped along by fighting with your UUs! Non religious: one switch :
Monarchy.

Age of Discovery: European: rewards aquiring tresure units, both by
building your own, and by stealing your oppoents. Native Americans:
achiveing one city culture victory is helped along by fighting!

Japan :Extremely Japanese tribe dependent due to extremes in starting
conditions.

Napoleonic : Wars, but use diplomancy so that your major oppoent is the
one facing several enemies at once instead of you.

WW II Pacific : No settlers able to be built by anyone. -> war
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Tönkkö" <en.tahdo@usko.jo> wrote in message
news:o hgd31ht3ipop8o48565i2uma0mthl4cnj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:50:48 +1100, persifor@pyramid.com (Persifor)
> wrote:
>
>
> Yep, there's much more :)  try finding strategy guide if you like.

To stay ahead with advances, you have to constantly tune your research
budget. Every time you start researching a new tech, go to F1 and increase
your research as high as you can afford, even into a deficit if it'll lower
the number of turns required and you can afford it.

Build the Forbidden Palace as soon as you can, as far from the main palace
as you can.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:50:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:44:33 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

>>Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
>>usually the only iron is in another civ's area.
>
> That is another reason for trading. Or war, if you prefer to take
>rather than trade.
>
> Aggressive expansion to get lots of territory is another way. You
>might not get all the resources even so, but the more land you have,
>and the more terrain types, the better the odds that you'll have them
>in your territory.

This is really my only big gripe with Civ3: Resources seem
unreasonably scarce, making the AIs extremely stingy when they have
them. I mean, no, they shouldn't be -too- common, but they're a little
too far on the other end of the scale right now.

--
Dark Tyger

Sympathy for the retailer:
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
"Door's to your left" -Gord
(I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

Hey, everyone else is doing it. Free iPod:
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=15728814
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:55:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Assmuming your using stock rules:

FP avaiable at start, provided you have half the unmodified OCN. (Half
the number listed on the map maker)

This means that if you have moded the game to increase the OCN to have
the effects of reducing corruption, you have also increased the number
of cities you need to build / capture to allow the FP to be built.
(Thus somewhat offsetting your goal)

Like all other Small Wonders, at the end of the first production phase
in which your able to build it, you will get a pop up saying "People
want to build the _____" [if you didn't already change a build to it.]

If playing one of the Conquests, above, the equialvent to the FP may
also require a tech.

Mesopotaina : So late it's not worth going for unless you get a MGL.

Middle Ages: Multiple versions allowed and yes you can build each type.
But I was playing the Turks and so needed to win before that era began.


Age of Discovery: Requires Colonization tech. I've won as the Aztecs
(Cultural one city) but had only just reached the beginning of the 3rd
era [the one the Europeans start in] by the time the game ended.

Japan: I won with only 8 cities (Diplomatic victory) and so well below
the requirement.

WW II Pacific: The Chinese start with the FP already built. There's
probably other cases as well.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 1:08:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Dennis Edward <nospam@nowaynohow.org> wrote:

> "Tönkkö" <en.tahdo@usko.jo> wrote in message
> news:o hgd31ht3ipop8o48565i2uma0mthl4cnj@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:50:48 +1100, persifor@pyramid.com (Persifor)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yep, there's much more :)  try finding strategy guide if you like.
>
> To stay ahead with advances, you have to constantly tune your research
> budget. Every time you start researching a new tech, go to F1 and increase
> your research as high as you can afford, even into a deficit if it'll lower
> the number of turns required and you can afford it.
>
> Build the Forbidden Palace as soon as you can, as far from the main palace
> as you can.

And that's another thing.
I never offered the forbiden Palace, no matter how many cities I ve on
the same continent.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:18:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

You can give ZOC to units in the editor.
It's just doesn't mean the same as it did in Civ II.

(Basically, in Civ III ZOC means there's a chance that the unit will
take a pot-shot at a unit moving directly from one ZOC to another,
knocking off 1 HP)
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:00:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Persifor" <persifor@pyramid.com> wrote in message
news:1gthaw7.mhw23o1rnxxk6N%persifor@pyramid.com...
>I have never even got to modern times with Civ 3. Just takes too long to
> get the advances.
> Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
> usually the only iron is in another civ's area.
> civ 2 was much easier.

I made a "scenario" where the only difference is you dont need strategic
resources for units/improvements.
The only other change id like to make, but cant, is zone of control like in
civ 1 and 2.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 1:41:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:54:50 -0800, Dark Tyger
<darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:44:33 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
><jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>>Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
>>>usually the only iron is in another civ's area.
>>
>> That is another reason for trading. Or war, if you prefer to take
>>rather than trade.
>>
>> Aggressive expansion to get lots of territory is another way. You
>>might not get all the resources even so, but the more land you have,
>>and the more terrain types, the better the odds that you'll have them
>>in your territory.
>
>This is really my only big gripe with Civ3: Resources seem
>unreasonably scarce, making the AIs extremely stingy when they have
>them. I mean, no, they shouldn't be -too- common, but they're a little
>too far on the other end of the scale right now.

Scarce resources forces competition, and that encourages war when
trading isn't possible. Or if not war per se, land-grabbing
colonization in order to "steal" resource squares from areas within
the area of a competitor.


--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
March 21, 2005 5:44:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:<lr9r3152ue8v7r90npvmtmb2qkiatf5r8m@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:54:50 -0800, Dark Tyger
> <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:44:33 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
> ><jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Also, if I get steam power there is never coal on the continent and
> >>>usually the only iron is in another civ's area.
> >>
> >> That is another reason for trading. Or war, if you prefer to take
> >>rather than trade.
> >>
> >> Aggressive expansion to get lots of territory is another way. You
> >>might not get all the resources even so, but the more land you have,
> >>and the more terrain types, the better the odds that you'll have them
> >>in your territory.
> >
> >This is really my only big gripe with Civ3: Resources seem
> >unreasonably scarce, making the AIs extremely stingy when they have
> >them. I mean, no, they shouldn't be -too- common, but they're a little
> >too far on the other end of the scale right now.
>
> Scarce resources forces competition, and that encourages war when
> trading isn't possible. Or if not war per se, land-grabbing
> colonization in order to "steal" resource squares from areas within
> the area of a competitor.

Scarse resources gives whoever owns them an advantage. If you have
them you can control the happyness and military production of your
friends/rivals or just make a lot of money. If a civ gets many
luxuries from you and you take all away, it causes disorder in many
cities, making him vulnerable as he cannot produce military.
!