Civilization III Conquests

[Novadistortion]

Hello. This is my first thread. I did a quick search to make sure there wasn't one already made and going. I noticed that there are at least some fans of the game of Civilization III. It is one of my favorites, and there are few things that I enjoy as much as talking strategy with others. I have conquests now, and I really enjoy all that they fixed with it. Anyone else want to discuss this game?

Also, anyone have a favorite civ(and why)?

My personal favorite is Persia. Immortals just come in at a perfect time in order to expand early on. Also, Scientific and Industrial are both very good traits to have. Aside from that, the Ottomans are another of my favorites. Siphai have a lot of offencive power and cavalry stay top of the line for a long time.

Any favorite strategies?

Personally, I am a big fan of taking on the offencive civs like German, Zululand, Russia, Mongolia, or anyone else who starts demanding tribute early on in the game. I let them start the fight, then I move in with a group of spearmen/immortals or any other similar defencive unit and tear up all the enemies roads. Then, take out one city. That generally puts them behind in the tech and development race as well convincing them to make peace(and possibly get a few free workers or cash.)

Also, I like the "Punching bag" strat. Basic idea is, you conquer one civilization, make sure they stay behind, but keep them alive in order to get military leaders out of them. This makes armies a viable option.

Anything else about the game you would like to discuss?

Anyway, like I said, this is one of my favorite subjects. I would really enjoy hearing from any other players around here.

 

[seebs]

In the end, Alpha Centauri spoiled Civ for me. I can't stand the incredibly restrictive unit types and lack of available upgrade paths.

I found Civ III pretty frustrating because of the atrociously buggy and intrusive copy protection (SecuROM doesn't work reliably on my machines!). I may give it another try. I have the Play The World expansion, but not Conquests; I'm probably going to pass on it, because I'm too frustrated with the things they seem to be keeping busted.

I really liked that, in Civ II, you could edit all the game parameters in plain old text files, without having to use some special GUI editor. Civ III's rules editor was totally busted for the first few patch releases; you couldn't run it at all. I don't know why they didn't just give us a plain text file, same as in EVERY OTHER CIV GAME.

 

[Breetai]

I started out on the original Civ1. I still love that game!

I only have the regular version or CivIII. I'm usually the Japanese, Chinese, Babylonians or Aztecs. I just really like ancient civiliations. I usually edit my map so every square around my starting position has a hut. Then I get lots of scientific advancements right away. Then I keep building cities until I control my continent and go for a cultural or space-race victory.

 

[ThePhoenix]

In the end, Alpha Centauri spoiled Civ for me. I can't stand the incredibly restrictive unit types and lack of available upgrade paths.

I found Civ III pretty frustrating because of the atrociously buggy and intrusive copy protection (SecuROM doesn't work reliably on my machines!). I may give it another try. I have the Play The World expansion, but not Conquests; I'm probably going to pass on it, because I'm too frustrated with the things they seem to be keeping busted.

I really liked that, in Civ II, you could edit all the game parameters in plain old text files, without having to use some special GUI editor. Civ III's rules editor was totally busted for the first few patch releases; you couldn't run it at all. I don't know why they didn't just give us a plain text file, same as in EVERY OTHER CIV GAME.

Alpha Centauri 2 MUST be made! That game was so much better then the Civ series. And it doesn't run on my Pentium 4! SO ANNOYING! [/Vent]

 

[seebs]

Alpha Centauri runs fine on the Pentium IV. You just need to tweak the voxel setting in the config file! There's a site out there somewhere with all the patches. I just picked up a collection that includes the Alien Crossfire expansion pack. Woo!

 

[jameseb]

Civ III Conquest... I love it.

My current strategy is to try and remain as friendly as possible with all civilizations until I've discovered the technology to make tanks. That's when I start to branch out and roll across nations. I play on Emperor setting (or whatever the second hardest setting is) with maximum civilizations so its hard to keep up in tech if I'm constantly fighting wars in the early years. Basically I let them take tribute from me.... but when I develop tanks, I exact my revenge!



~J

 

[ozanaki tori]

I've been playing ye olde civII a lot lately.

I am wanting to get CIIIC, but haven't the money right now.
I got CivIII when it came out, and then my sister moved out and somehow it got in with her stuff but she swears it didn't..

 

[ozanaki tori]

"Alpha Centauri 2 MUST be made! That game was so much better then the Civ series. And it doesn't run on my Pentium 4! SO ANNOYING!"

SOMEONE GET A GLASS OF WATER, I THINK PHOENIX HAS CAUGHT THE FEVER!
heheheh.
The best thing about the civ games was that it was about civilization. It was the fun of starting a country and growing in this world, and the real-worldness of it was what I loved. But that's just me.

 

[Novadistortion]

Civ III Conquest... I love it.

My current strategy is to try and remain as friendly as possible with all civilizations until I've discovered the technology to make tanks. That's when I start to branch out and roll across nations. I play on Emperor setting (or whatever the second hardest setting is) with maximum civilizations so its hard to keep up in tech if I'm constantly fighting wars in the early years. Basically I let them take tribute from me.... but when I develop tanks, I exact my revenge!
~J

Ahh, well I play mostly for enjoyment. As such, I like to play on regent and just do what I want. That usually means just doing what I want and being relatively peaceful... unless someone starts making demands in which case I like to go wipe them off the map. I just enjoy making a huge perfect nation with somewhat limited challenge rather than playing at a harder level where I am constantly fighting for my life.(I love it when some backward nation starts making demands, then gets their horsemen smashed by my armies of knights and pikemen.) I don't like huge maps very much because it is extremely hard to get domination/conquest victories. Anyway, what is your favorite civ? If you like tanks I suppose Germany? The second hardest setting is Deity in conquests btw. I haven't tried going over regent difficulty yet though.

For those of you who have had trouble with civ III, I had them too. Conquests fixed pretty much everything from underpowered units like the musketeer to the bombardment capabilities of air units. Not to mention the scenarios can be a lot of fun too. You can play through a lot of different conflicts. My personal favorite of those would be WWII in the pacific. Follow that one closely by the Sengoku(sp?) err... the Japan one.

Anyway, who do you think is the most irritating of the civs? I think the most annoying would be Aztec, Germany, and Zulu.

Also, I am fairly new to Conquests, but has anyone else noticed that Korea never seems to do very well, yet for some reason always starts wars it can never win? Is this similar to the Zulu habit of once they start a war, they don't quit until they are utterly creamed by the opposition, even if they aren't making progress?

 

[ThePhoenix]

Alpha Centauri runs fine on the Pentium IV. You just need to tweak the voxel setting in the config file! There's a site out there somewhere with all the patches. I just picked up a collection that includes the Alien Crossfire expansion pack. Woo!

NICE! I'll have to try that, it keeps saying "Incompatable CPU" and crashing when I load it up. Google is about to become my good friend again.

 

[jameseb]

I just enjoy making a huge perfect nation with somewhat limited challenge rather than playing at a harder level where I am constantly fighting for my life.(I love it when some backward nation starts making demands, then gets their horsemen smashed by my armies of knights and pikemen.)

Yes, that's my goal as well. However, I quickly run into other nations at the start of the game so my empire starts off rather small. I expand my empire later when I have a strong tech base and built up a fairly strong army. Heh, I do love when those small, backward civilizations (already embroiled in a major war as it is!) declaring war on my cause I won't give them 50 gold in tribute!

I don't like huge maps very much because it is extremely hard to get domination/conquest victories. Anyway, what is your favorite civ? If you like tanks I suppose Germany? The second hardest setting is Deity in conquests btw. I haven't tried going over regent difficulty yet though.

Ah, see I LOVE the hugest map possible with every civilization represented. Of course, it does get reeeeal crowded! I actually have Domination victory turned off. I play all the way to the year 2050. I play now just to try and beat some of my old scores.... I think my highest score right now (on Emperor setting) is 12,000 which I got playing the Egyptians no less.

My favorite civ is the Babylonians. Their religion/science influence works great for my strategy, however, I'm trying to rotate between all the civ's right now.

Anyway, who do you think is the most irritating of the civs? I think the most annoying would be Aztec, Germany, and Zulu.

Hands down, the biggest pain in the butt has to be GERMANY. I could give them every gold coin I ever earned and they'd still view me with suspicion. They are simply irritating.

Also, I am fairly new to Conquests, but has anyone else noticed that Korea never seems to do very well, yet for some reason always starts wars it can never win? Is this similar to the Zulu habit of once they start a war, they don't quit until they are utterly creamed by the opposition, even if they aren't making progress?

The Koreans usually do well in the games I play. I don't know if that's because of some "glitch" or if its cause they usually get a lucky start on the maps I've played. I'm not sure about the Zulus.... When I play the large map/all civ's games, half of the civ's or more are wiped out before I even get to the 20th century. As for their tenacity in combat, they are up there with the Romans, Germans and the Japanese.


~J

 

[roborl]

Has anyone ever played the board game that it is all based apon.

Fantastic if you've got a WEEKEND to spear

 

[Novadistortion]

Yes, that's my goal as well. However, I quickly run into other nations at the start of the game so my empire starts off rather small. I expand my empire later when I have a strong tech base and built up a fairly strong army. Heh, I do love when those small, backward civilizations (already embroiled in a major war as it is!) declaring war on my cause I won't give them 50 gold in tribute!

Yeah, I suppose my skill at the game isn't as good as it could be, but I just enjoy it more when I can play it at a relaxed pace where the only real threat is not achieving my goals rather than fighting for my nations life.

Ah, see I LOVE the hugest map possible with every civilization represented. Of course, it does get reeeeal crowded! I actually have Domination victory turned off. I play all the way to the year 2050. I play now just to try and beat some of my old scores.... I think my highest score right now (on Emperor setting) is 12,000 which I got playing the Egyptians no less.

Well, I prefer to fight my wars in one of two ways:

1. If I have a major advantage and can stomp my opponents, I just make one big group of attack units, beat the opposition away city by city, leaving wounded units in captured cities to recover, then rejoin the force. This is what I do when I have the upper hand and can take land fairly quickly without major losses.

2. Slow paced fights vs strong opponents which usually involve moving in slowly with infantry units and artillery, redlining everything, then moving in.

Unfortunately, #2 happens more often than #1. I don't like huge maps so much because it takes so long to get things to the front lines. Even after developing railroads it can be a problem. I prefer smaller maps where I can fight wars the way I want rather than scramble for a victory before time runs out or one of my opponents launch their shuttle.

My favorite civ is the Babylonians. Their religion/science influence works great for my strategy, however, I'm trying to rotate between all the civ's right now.

Babylonians are great for culture victories, but I find that their UU is lacking. The religious trait is very handy, but I try to not change govt types as much as possible. Fascism + industrial is wonderful for developing your land as well. Also, most civs don't have an opinion on Fascism either positive or negative(not very realistic) so it is good for relations. It can be a pain to develop conquered territory, but it provides good economy, capability for war, and excellent development as well as a large standing army. It may take a long time to tech up to it, but I find monarchy serves fairly well up until that point. The only real downside is the forced labor, which isn't fun.

Hands down, the biggest pain in the butt has to be GERMANY. I could give them every gold coin I ever earned and they'd still view me with suspicion. They are simply irritating.

Yeah, they are irritating, but I have found that they are fairly weak early on in the game. Also, they are wonderful to have around, provided they aren't right next to you. They make a good "public enemy" for you to distract all the other civs with because they don't like to make peace.

I actually think England/America/India are some of the worse ones. They aren't openly warlike, but I have noticed a disturbing tendency(especially england) toward backstabbings and dishonest dealings.

The Koreans usually do well in the games I play. I don't know if that's because of some "glitch" or if its cause they usually get a lucky start on the maps I've played. I'm not sure about the Zulus.... When I play the large map/all civ's games, half of the civ's or more are wiped out before I even get to the 20th century. As for their tenacity in combat, they are up there with the Romans, Germans and the Japanese.

I haven't played a conquests game yet where Korea hasn't done something stupid. In one game I was playing as the Dutch on a regicide. I had 12 cities, they had 3. For some odd reason, they decided to declare war on me when I had done nothing to them at all. I don't think they ever even tried to attack. In the other game, I was playing as the Ottomans. Korea was stuck between three of the top powers of the game(aside from me) and foolishly declared war on the largest of the three, was promptly obliterated, then set up camp on a penninsula right above my territory where they developed very slowly and became a non factor in the game due to the fact that all they had was some tundra, not to mention all the enemies that they had made.

Zulu are only a threat early game. I have yet to see them keep up in tech/make anywhere near a powerful civ after the ancient era without my intervention. I played a game once where I allied with them early on and just kept them as a sort of right hand which I could use to keep my enemies distracted and my borders clear while I took out priority targets. It worked very well. I kept them around and up to date with techs, and they served as a surprisingly loyal ally.



The Romans have never ended up as a huge factor in my games. I have rarely ended up near them, and when I have, Immortals > Legionaires.

Japan is definately a powerful player though. They have a potent war combo and a good UU. Also, they don't make any of the stupid decisions common to some of the other militaristic civs. They are one of my favorites to use as a puppet... er ally.

 

[~SHINE~]

I love Civ III Conquests! I just got the Conquests addition and really like it. My favorite civilization is still Persia. I like to play in a Small world with just three or four other civilizations. I'll try to eliminate one right away (it adds up my points pretty quickly, and is a good way to get fast cities). Then, later in the game I'll decide whether to cooperate with the others, or to start another war. What level do you usually play in? I pretty much stay on chieftan still. I do usually win, though. When I try playing on warlord, I lose. I can't even imagine winning on the higher levels... has anyone done this?

 

[MoonlessNight]

I didn't like Civ III much because I too have been ruined by Alpha Centauri. However, it's not just the fact that you can't freely design units. I could live with that. What really bugged me was that it's nearly impossible to win by being aggresive early on and using short-sighted policies that give you a little bit of an edge in the present. That was my favorite way to play in Alpha Centauri (as the Spartans, or course. Quite arguably the best Faction). But the fact is, the changes made to Civ III make that type of strategy completely impossible. So I've only played it a few things. It's a good thing that I tried my friend's copy out before deciding to buy it.

 

[~SHINE~]

I actually think England/America/India are some of the worse ones. They aren't openly warlike, but I have noticed a disturbing tendency(especially england) toward backstabbings and dishonest dealings.

I agree here, in almost every game I've played England has done something sneaky against my country.

 

[jameseb]

I agree here, in almost every game I've played England has done something sneaky against my country.

England at least always betrays another country in my games. That usually catches up to them too I guess... they never last till the end of the game.

 

[Novadistortion]

I love Civ III Conquests! I just got the Conquests addition and really like it. My favorite civilization is still Persia. I like to play in a Small world with just three or four other civilizations. I'll try to eliminate one right away (it adds up my points pretty quickly, and is a good way to get fast cities). Then, later in the game I'll decide whether to cooperate with the others, or to start another war. What level do you usually play in? I pretty much stay on chieftan still. I do usually win, though. When I try playing on warlord, I lose. I can't even imagine winning on the higher levels... has anyone done this?

Persia is really the best IMO. Immortals are the exact same thing as medieval infantry except you can get them early on. It is a massive advantage because few things of the same time can have a good chance against them. The only two things that do reasonably well are hoplites and numidian mercenaries. Both of those aren't that cost effective either.

As for chieftain. I used to have trouble as well. I usually play in warlord or regent difficulty though. Chieftain is too easy once you figure out the basics. Here is my advice for getting out of chieftain:

1. Make sure you let the governor control your cities populations. That way you can avoid civil disorder.

2. Read strategy guides about the game, or ask someone here who knows about it for each situation. There are a lot of different ways to mess with the computer.

3. Just keep trying. Warlord isn't very hard at all once you get the hang of it. You won't be able to get all the wonders anymore, but you should be able to get the important ones. Don't be discouraged by failing to get one you really want like the pyramids. Just find out who has it and go conquer it if possible, or destroy them if it is too far away or otherwise not worth your time.

4. Artillery are deadly later on. In early game, I usually don't bother except a few for defence in key points. Catapults are next to worthless. Trebuchets are useful, but just as hard to move as catapults. Cannons are good for defence, but they just aren't potent enough to be worth it. Artillery and Radar artillery are deadly in large groups though. I prefer them to air bombardment myself. If you use them in combination with infantry(which have equal to the best attack at the time and better defence) you can just redline an enemy cities defenders, and march in with infantry. It is a slow process, taking a few turns per city, but the casualties are virtually nonexistant.


As for england, yeah, I can't remember a game I was in with them where they did not backstab me in one form or another. They don't usually end up as a successful civ in my games though. If they are close to me, I go after them early as they are not very strong early on. If I am Persia, and I have iron, then that spells out their doom very quickly. Of course, if they have iron and I don't that spells out their doom just as quickly.

 

[Apollonian]

If you can secure a steady source of Iron relatively early on in the game, the Japanese rule all!

The Samurai's military power and versatility is unmatched until later when Cavalry finally arive. Furthermore, the militaristic element means that there is a high chance of producing 'leaders' early on in the game. An army of Samurai is practically unstoppable. The only trouble is - if you can't find iron early on - you're done for since you are bound to fall behind.

The Greeks would probably be my second choice. Then perhaps Persia, and I was also trying the Ottomans though I didn't finish my game with them.

Alas, too bad that Neverwinter Nights has been taking up all my gaming time. Civilization III is the greatest Strategy game I've seen so far. Yet, ultimately I enjoy playing online in a persistent world with other actual people far more than spending hours and hours with Artificial Intelligence - no matter how ingenius.