OT-Civilization 3...Conquests...

[kserra]

I'm downloading the 3 hour trial of Conquest right now and was wondering what you all thought of Civ 3 in its newest incarnation?

I was a HUGE Civ 2 fan...played it for four years straight and loved every second...

I never really got into Civ 3...mostly because of it's problems, bugs, and my own general disappointment that it did not incorporate enough of Alpha Centauri gameplay into the product...

I really want this game to be great, so I'm hoping to hear from anyone who has played this newest version before I set out on trying to reclaim a lost love...

What's your take on the newest game...also, just so you know, apparantly it has been confirmed that they are beginning preliminary work on Civ 4...go check out civfantic.com for more info...

Kevin

[Flasch186]

Kev

I love the game. I think it is truly a great game and well worth it. There are somebugs that they i assume are going to work out but we'll see. I wish I could do all of the editing that i see people are able to do when i look on the forums, like adding 4000 different units. That would be awesome. anyways...i suggest buying the game and the Conquests add on.

[GabeRivers]

IMO, they seem to have significantly improved the AI in this latest expansion pack. It appears to use better logic in orchestrating both its attacks and its defensive schemes. They added a couple of new traits that I like -- seafaring and agriculture.

They've also added some new techs and altered the tech tree. Some of those changes are fine, others don't make much sense to me. For example, "ironclads" is now a stand-alone, dead-end tech, rather than simply being a naval unit. This new tech does nothing more than to allow you to build ironclads. I don't recall what tech formerly allowed the building of ironclads, but it seemed to make sense the way it was before.

I supposed that the crux of Conquests is all the new scenarios they made, however, I generally play the epic game, so they mean little to me.

There are a lot of other tweaks. For example, "pollution" is now enveloped by "damage", which also includes land damaged by bombardment and damage from volcanoes (new).

There are some bugs that are supposed to be addressed by a patch projected to be ready sometime in January. Corruption is way out of whack. You can address this problem in the editor, but not adequately.

On the whole, though, I like this expansion pack, if for no other reason because of the improved AI play.

[Calis]

Never played 3, but for those who are fans..Firaxis has announced that Civ4 is being worked on now, it's still over a year off, but being made.

[Godzilla Blitz]

The last time I checked (about a year ago probably), there were people complaining that AI countries traded tech like crazy, and that that led to a host of other gameplay issues (tech tree running out, tech race gets eliminated in the game, etc.).

Has this been addressed in Conquests? Or perhaps it was fixed in a patch in the last year?

[ISiddiqui]

I hated the super-aggressive enemies (especially how they'd try to find little tiny places within your borders you hadn't settled and make a city there... hello, that's a bad idea in the first place) and cultural changes (when has that happened in history?) so I stopped playing it fairly early after I got it.

[Leonidas]

Conquests makes Civ III into the kind of game it should have been all along. Much more enjoyable than plain Civ III. Big thing is the game is really focused on going to war. Most of the new things are directly related to military functions. Some of the new civs are cool too, and for the most part they are really aggressive.

I just finished a great English dynasty. Man do they rock on the commerce. And the new nautical special ability really rocks too. I wound up with cruisers and destroyers while everyone else was just getting frigates. I was destroying entire fleets in two turns.

I finally one the thing by winning the UN vote, but only after smiting two entire civs.

One of the new features is the take the king feature. With this each civ is granted a new character, the king. The usual strategy is to keep the king in your capital and just load up with a buttload of military to protect him. If the king dies, your entire civ is destroyed. So one strategy I used very well was to tie up my enemies by getting as many other countries as I could into a military alliance against them and when these other coutries have their forces tied up, I swoop in for the kill with my big navy (including a carrier or two for bombing) and a good sized invasion force and go for the head shot by taking out the capital and the king. I killed off the Arabs and Sumerians this way.

After I won the game I went back and replayed the last few turns, ending it by nuking their capitals and killing their kings. I wound up with the only civ, yet the game still said I lost. I guess the nuke option makes you default.

[kserra]

I'm not interested in scenarios...I only play the epic game...it's what got me addicted to Civ2 and I insist that it be the main focus of the game if I'm to enjoy it...

After dinner I'm going to fire up Conquests and give it a shot...I'm sure the 3 hour trial won't be enough to sway me one way or another...but I guess that's why I have a job...so I can waste 25 bucks on a game I may or may not play a bunch...

For those of you who have played Conquests...has the computers use of the navy, especially transports and d-day type invasions improved?

I'm reluctant to start games with lots of islands because I've found the AI unable to effectively launch seaborne assaults.

As to the bugs...are there any showstoppers I should know about before I spend a great deal of time with the game only to get frustrated and scream?

thanks guys.

Kevin

[Buccaneer]

I am, obviously, interested in scenarios - but not the kind Civ3 makes. Even with Conquests, there are still no true scenarios (re: limited events). Like my old civer friend Imran, I stopped playing after a short while. My biggest complaint that it is too linear, not like the open-endedness of Civ2.

[Solecismic]

I tried making FOF less linear, but people complained when the quarterback started making tackles upfield before he threw interceptions.

Seriously, I don't know why I loved Civ 2, but put Civ 3 away after only a few games. And I really enjoyed the new cultural elements, too (I always play to avoid war).

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by kserra

For those of you who have played Conquests...has the computers use of the navy, especially transports and d-day type invasions improved?

I'm reluctant to start games with lots of islands because I've found the AI unable to effectively launch seaborne assaults.

Kevin

I noticed significant changes to how navy units operated, but not in assaults. For warships the AI like to bunch them up into a fleet. Not uncommon to come across 5 or 6 frigates packed together. When I had my advantage with the destroyers and cruisers this was really cool because I could attack them en masse and take out an entire fleet in one shot. Takes years for an AI navy to recover.

Something else I forgot about Conquests, bombardments are much more lethal, especially aerial bombardments. Now you can actually kill a unit, rather than just get it down to 1 and only target improvements. When you get advanced aerial units you can also do precision bombing where you only strike city improvements. Playing war in this version is so much more fun.

[kserra]

hey guys...it's been reported that a beta patch is coming out next week...

I ended up having to buy the game at Best Buy... the download version only works with a specific release of the game that I did not have...damn...had to get out of my pajamas...at least I got some beer so I'd enjoy the game no matter what...

maybe disregard my next post about the game...it's one in the afternoon, I'm not working...and the beer is pretty tasty... :eek:

Kevin