StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You had to take the beautifulnees of Civ 2, and totally ruin it with Civ 3;
by deleting firepower; and adding resources......

That post had +4 Resistance to Readability. What the heck?

I got Civ 3: Conquests for about $7 bucks used; and it's just a pain in the ass to play; I have riflemen and the other guy has spearmen. and he's slaughtering my riflemen

Finally, I can't build railroads despite me conquering a piece of land wiht coal in it; and having it linked via road to my empire.

MKSheppard wrote:I got Civ 3: Conquests for about $7 bucks used; and it's just a pain in the ass to play; I have riflemen and the other guy has spearmen. and he's slaughtering my riflemen

Finally, I can't build railroads despite me conquering a piece of land wiht coal in it; and having it linked via road to my empire.

..which happens in every Civ. I've had musketeers shoot down F-16's. So?

Civ 4 should take care of a spearman beating a tank.

DEATH wrote:Civ 4 should take care of a spearman beating a tank.

Sid said so himself that there would be no more Spearmen beating tanks or Muskets sinking aircraft carriers.

MKSheppard wrote: Finally, I can't build railroads despite me conquering a piece of land wiht coal in it; and having it linked via road to my empire.

You either need to get the coal within your borders, or to build a colony on it. Building a colony uses up a worker. Colonies are destroyed if the enemy occupies the square or expands its borders to cover the colony.

Prozac the Robert wrote:

MKSheppard wrote: Finally, I can't build railroads despite me conquering a piece of land wiht coal in it; and having it linked via road to my empire.

You either need to get the coal within your borders, or to build a colony on it. Building a colony uses up a worker. Colonies are destroyed if the enemy occupies the square or expands its borders to cover the colony.

I think you need more than just coal. I think he also needs iron. I doubt you can build a railroad on coal alone.

Yeah, to build railroads you need coal and iron. Not only that, but do you have direct access to the freshly conquered territory? If the enemy has borders that lie over your road then they'll block your access. Also, did you patch the game? Apparently that cleans up some, but not all, of the stupid "spearman defeats modern armour" crap. Honestly, I wish there was a command called, "Execute commanding officer for gross stupidity". However, one thing I must say is that I like the addition of strategic and luxury resources because it adds extra strategic depth to the game. Suddenly going to war can be much more important in order to either protect your resources from encroaching enemy borders or to obtain resources you need but don't have.

Besides Shep, once you get nukes you can actually nuke your opponents into the stone age by targetting their oil and rubber resources along with their cities and army groups. There's nothing quite as fun as letting loose with all your ICBMs against the last loser to stand against your might and then roll into cities only guarded by conscript riflemen.

Also, if the resources you need are on another continent, you'll need a direct sea route between it and the rest of your territory. This means putting a port in a city on both landmasses, with all sea squares between them passable by ships at your current level of technology.

My worst defeat was a Veteran battleship in old civ 1, attacking a regular settler. It lost. I swore very loudly.

I didn't mind the resources too bad. If only because it spurned a continual hot war between three powers over the one deposit of Uranium.

Dude, I LOVED Civ3. It looked night, played nice, had ok music. Was lots of fun. Plus once you had the Map Editor, you could set up a world that let you cheat like CRAZY!

MKSheppard wrote:I got Civ 3: Conquests for about $7 bucks used; and it's just a pain in the ass to play; I have riflemen and the other guy has spearmen. and he's slaughtering my riflemen

Finally, I can't build railroads despite me conquering a piece of land wiht coal in it; and having it linked via road to my empire.

Can't believe I'm going to agree with Sheppard here... I remember one instance where I had 3 tanks assaulted an enemy base defended by 1 spearman - all my tanks lost. I uninstalled the game after that.

Edit: Typo.

Academia Nut wrote:Apparently that cleans up some, but not all, of the stupid "spearman defeats modern armour" crap.

I suggest that you worry less about the names of the units and treat them more as the completely abstract representations of military power that they are.

One has to remember, there are REASONS who the original games had the 'Spearman defeats Tank' deal... If things WHERE Properlly balanced, One tank could take over any Empeir from the Bronze age down.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:One has to remember, there are REASONS who the original games had the 'Spearman defeats Tank' deal... If things WHERE Properlly balanced, One tank could take over any Empeir from the Bronze age down.

Because Civ 3 does not incoperate mechanice breakdowns and suchlike as does Civ 4.

If you guys would just suspent disbelief for a minute. They aren't spearmen anymore, they've been around for centuries, they're some sort of poorly armed local milita, many hundreds of them, defending a huge metropolis, the people are on their side, there aren't all that many tanks. Luck and such was on their side. Perhaps as they drove into the city, buildings were toppled and the tanks were trapped and they starved them out or something.

Civ III is among my favorites for games. I've spent hours on it, trying to crush my enemies and playing those conquests for hours and hours, rewriting history with a pan-European Viking empire or a Portuguese N. America.

Beyond that, I found the cultural borders to be a good idea, same with the resources. While the losses to technologically inferior foes was annoying, it's a trait common to all Civ games, so, I can deal. My biggest problem was how long it took to build things out in the boonies, as it were. 100 goddamned turns for a temple? Fucking corruption always screwed over my towns in the middle of nowhere.

Am I the only one who loved to build a nations tech until they reached the nuclear age and then proceeded to equip nukes onto ICBMs and watch them turn a Bronze/Iron age city into nuclear waste? Man, I loved Civilization II. I used to always get two nations to fight against each while I plotted behind thier back As I reached a a tech level where I didn't even need to send one foot soldier to wipe them out.

I wish I hadn't lost the CD-roms. Just reminicsing about Civ II makes me want to install it on to my hard Drive and play for old times sake.

Oh noes, the spearmen defeated my tank! Well, if you insist on sending cav in unsupported then don't be suprised at the odd asymetrical upset.

Civ 3 is a game about combined arms. Your artillary train, protected by your infantry pounds the defenders down to 1hp. Your attackers then grind them into dust.

As for what bombers do in C3, well it's not pretty.
Then there are the armies.

And I find the resources aspect quite chilling. In Civ 2 you conquered for the hell of it. In Civ 3 you go to war to control a useful resource, like um Oil for example.

Resources are great, and the addition of Tow Infantry meant that while less effective, nations without resources could still get something.