Civ III

[Deraldin]

It's not a matter of being first.  The computer offers ridiculous trades.  It's ridiculous trying to get a decent trade, and many times impossible, even if you are not in first place.  Getting resources from the computer is laughable.  Even making excellent offers gets the player nowhere.

 

You're forced to fight for everything, even if you wanted to play a more or less peaceful nation.  At higher difficulties you will be forced to fight often.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I find that it depends on what you are trying to trade for. Strategic resources I can almost never get through trades with the exception being if my people are starting to revolt due to war weariness so I'll sue for peace and try to get a little extra for it in the process.

 

I can usually manage to get moderatly fair trades for techs and about a 50% chance at a 1:1 trade for luxury resouces.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, that's what I meant. The computer players don't trade strategic resources to me, no matter how unbalanced the deal is for them. I just think the Civ 3 design team wanted to create a "braggart's paradise." Sure, it's all great to beat your chest and brag about how well you play, but I'd rather have a game that let me trade with other players and explore at least a little while before it came to outright warfare.

[metadigital]

Also it is silly that a demand for a tribute of 50 gold will be rejected, but a demand for 5 gold over 100 turns will be accepted!

 

But the point is that the game has been developed so that war is inevitable AND that war isn't fun. So they have engineered something that is (probably a very sound social history edutainment piece, AND) not fun to play.

[alanschu]

It's not a matter of being first.  The computer offers ridiculous trades.  It's ridiculous trying to get a decent trade, and many times impossible, even if you are not in first place.  Getting resources from the computer is laughable.  Even making excellent offers gets the player nowhere.

 

You're forced to fight for everything, even if you wanted to play a more or less peaceful nation.  At higher difficulties you will be forced to fight often.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They really value maps. But if you trade your map with one person, you better do it with all of them on that same turn.

 

They also really value resources. I can get huge gold per turn trades, and technologies, for trade goods.

[metadigital]

They really value maps.  But if you trade your map with one person, you better do it with all of them on that same turn.

 

They also really value resources.  I can get huge gold per turn trades, and technologies, for trade goods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect that was weighted simply to encourage players to build up trade with other players. But since you can be at war with someone and still trade with them () and the price doesn't even go up (:wacko:) and the net result is useless unless you have dozens of trade routes, then I find it

[alanschu]

suspect that was weighted simply to encourage players to build up trade with other players. But since you can be at war with someone and still trade with them () and the price doesn't even go up () and the net result is useless unless you have dozens of trade routes, then I find it

[EnderAndrew]

I just avoid war for the most part and win with culture.

[alanschu]

By the time Democracy is prevalent, few of my games have much for war in it as well.

 

No nations really declare war as they'll end up suffering from gargantuan war weariness and civil disorder.

[EnderAndrew]

If I have war, I try to have it early, and make it quick. I make a quick run for a city or two that has resources I need, and the negotiate surrender/peace quickly after.

[alanschu]

I agree. I also make plays for strategic land areas as well, so as to being able to either use a city as a canal, or to create a place where a limited number of units can defend indefinitely. Units on the defensive in mountains with fortresses are pretty much impregnable!

[metadigital]

I'd like to know what Civ 3 you're playing.  This attachment shows my options for diplomacy when I'm at war with a country.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that AI opponents sue for peace? My response is: "So?".

 

After the peace their ally, or they will attack again. If I don't wipe out all the AI opponents in the early part of the game, then they overtake and attack repeatedly and continually.

 

I'm not sure why you posted that in response to my comment:

suspect that was weighted simply to encourage players to build up trade with other players. But since you can be at war with someone and still trade with them () and the price doesn't even go up () and the net result is useless unless you have dozens of trade routes, then I find it

[Walsingham]

We mentioned the insane trading strategies of the AIs in the previous Civ thread.

 

King Walsingham - "I could squash you like an ant, babylon, but in a spirit of enlightenment I will offer to trade you silk for fur, one for one. A gentleman's trade between equals."

 

Chief Mbonkwemafutu: "No dice, you crazy hippy! I demand three luxuries for my one."

 

King Walsingham - "My army outnumbers you four to one and they are poised on your borders. Please I implore you to avert the bloodshed."

 

Chief Mbonkwemafutu: *insane cackling*

 

King Walsingham - "Oh, for f**ks sake..." *squishes stupid country and takes fur by force*

[metadigital]

... *and raises the virtual ire of every other AI player, becoming the target for all hostilities and the object of all alliances through which the AI civs trade up the tech tree faster than the player can send out a spy*

[Walsingham]

Adding Ai players just adds heads to the hydra. I am considering playing with less AI to see if this improves matters. I suspect however that I will merely be proving the triumph of optimism over experience.

 

Incidentally, when playing Civ III my computer keeps just dropping out of the game with no explanation and no save. Could it be something I am doing?

[Reveilled]

I'd like to know what Civ 3 you're playing.  This attachment shows my options for diplomacy when I'm at war with a country.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that AI opponents sue for peace? My response is: "So?".

 

<snip>

I'm not sure why you posted that in response to my comment:

suspect that was weighted simply to encourage players to build up trade with other players. But since you can be at war with someone and still trade with them...

 

<snip>

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he posted that because the only option he has while at war with someone is to offer them peace.

[Walsingham]

I decided to drink some beer and watch Firefly. I can report that I am far far more pleased than I would be playing Civ III.

[Guest Fishboot]

I'm not liking how unified this opinion of distaste for Civ III is. You're all making my contrarian heart think that maybe it was a secretly great game.

[metadigital]

Adding Ai players just adds heads to the hydra. I am considering playing with less AI to  see if this improves matters. I suspect however that I will merely be proving the triumph of optimism over experience.

 

Incidentally, when playing Civ III my computer keeps just dropping out of the game with no explanation and no save. Could it be something I am doing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I usually compromised by having seven players, but no replacements (otherwise it is a truly Sissyphean task).

 

Any AI can advance up to the players level at a speed that is proportional to the level achieved by the player; a new AI at 1900 can beat you into space.

[Walsingham]

I'm not liking how unified this opinion of distaste for Civ III is. You're all making my contrarian heart think that maybe it was a secretly great game. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Gold. :D

[metadigital]

I'm not liking how unified this opinion of distaste for Civ III is. You're all making my contrarian heart think that maybe it was a secretly great game. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gold. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

0H N0355!%5!!!!1

 

 

He's onto us ...

[alanschu]

I posted that because you said you could trade with people at war:

 

But since you can be at war with someone and still trade with them

 

In my screenshot, the diplomatic action was inititated by ME, and the only diplomatic option I can propose is a peace treaty. I cannot trade with countries that I am at war with.

[Walsingham]

I posted that because you said you could trade with people at war:

 

But since you can be at war with someone and still trade with them

 

In my screenshot, the diplomatic action was inititated by ME, and the only diplomatic option I can propose is a peace treaty. I cannot trade with countries that I am at war with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is so straightforward we have to be sufering a misunderstanding. you can only trade once you agree to peace first. Can't you?

[alanschu]

You can only trade with a nation if you are not at war with that nation.

 

During the peace treaty though, you can demand/offer the usual trade options in order to sweeten the deal if you're getting crushed, or demand stuff if you are annihilating the enemy.

 

The reason why I posted is that metadigital said you could still trade with nations you were at war with.

[Skynet]

Yes. Although you can involve the loss of cities and such into your peace treaties (I'll only agree to peace if you give me Houston and 100 gold).

[metadigital]

You can only trade with a nation if you are not at war with that nation.

 

During the peace treaty though, you can demand/offer the usual trade options in order to sweeten the deal if you're getting crushed, or demand stuff if you are annihilating the enemy.

 

The reason why I posted is that metadigital said you could still trade with nations you were at war with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are at crossed purposes. I take some (not much ) of the blame, because I might have been a little clearer in what I meant.

 

You don't lose any existing trade deals, like 5 gold over 50 turns, or trading luxuries with others, etc, when you engage in warfare with the nations that you have these agreements with.

 

That's like the US providing oil for the Japanese war machine in the Pacific during WW2 because they had a pre-war deal, and that is silly.