Any interest in a Civ3 Adventure?

[ljubljana]

In the wake of T-Hawk's recent Civ 4 Adventures, and given the recent tenor of some of the Civ VI discussion, I thought it might be interesting and fun to revisit C3C, 15 years after Vanilla's release and more than 10 since its fanbase moved on. Is anyone else interested in this?

In particular, it is my belief that late-breaking patches have made the final version of C3C different in some important ways from anything that was ever played competitively on RB. This final version seems to have come into effect around the time of this game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/in...05224.html

which itself illustrates some of the changes. Most notably:

-- Self-research may be generally viable at high diffiulties. I have personally found this to be true, have beaten Deity several times with no GPT buys save the odd broker, and plan to mostly self-research in this game, if it occurs.
-- The AI seems better at conquering, especially vs other AI. At high difficulty, Pangaea and Continents maps often see single AIs (usually Agricultural ones) start to dominate large landmasses in the late Middle Ages or so.
-- Monster AI's in the above pattern will usually threaten an 100k culture win in the late Industrial Age, requiring invasion.

These changes make for a game that is harder and, IMO, much more fun than previous versions. But some things about the final version of C3C are still broken. I'd probably use a mod to make some changes for balance reasons, such as:

-- Lethal land bombardment removed from airplanes.
-- Medival Infantry cost raised from 40 to 45 shields. I have found this a pretty balanced (ie, offering a meaningful choice vs longbows) number, but am open to discussion on the exact amount.
-- Status of Zeus expiration moved up to Education.

I'd also lean towards the following changes:

-- SGLs removed to ease luck factors in wonder-building.
-- Armies nerfed significantly, possibly by removal from the game since the Conquests AI forgot how to use them.
-- Airplane range decreased.
-- Possibly UU-specific changes depending on our civ (0/1/3 Chasqui Scout? fixed Hwach'a?)

I'm open to discussion on all of these, and would also be open to other changes, if a consensus forms around them. We'd also be playing with standard RB exploit rules from way back when, unless there are lots of objections to that.

Game settings would be flexible, but I'd like them to include standard map size and continents or pangaea landforms to (hopefully) allow the AI changes to show up. As far as difficulty, my initial thoughts favor something around Demigod, providing challenge to old hands while allowing for some amount of rust-shaking (but let me know what difficulty you'd prefer).

Please tell me what you think! I am open to feedback and comments of all types.

[Bobchillingworth]

Very interested in playing, not with a mod though.


Demigod might get pretty hardcore with the settings you mention, depending on what leader we pick. I typically play Emperor with weak leaders, Demigod with the strongest, and Deity with both a top-tier leader and favorable map settings (like a private island with at luxury). The AI on Demigod doesn't mess around, and in my experience is at the point where gameplay heavily revolves around exploiting some of its more predictably braindead behaviours (like its refusal to attack Armies if any other targets are available).

Emperor is still reasonably challenging with mid-to-low tier leaders provided we don't land an amazing start, and IMO well-suited for an exhibition game.


I'd also recommend using a large map instead of standard, if you really want to see some large AI empires. Pangea might make the game a little too human-centric if you want to showcase AI-vs-AI combat.


What are the "standard RB rules" you have in mind? I assume no RoP-rape is a given, but what else?

[T-hawk]

Civ 3 doesn't use "mods" the way 4 and 5 do. Civ 3 stores the game rules in the scenario and save files. To do a "modded" game, you generate or open a starting save in Worldbuilder (which is a separate executable unlike Civ 4), and there is a UI to edit the game rules like costs and wonder expiration and lethal bombardment per unit.

The RB exploit rules for Civ 3 are here: http://www.realmsbeyond.net/civ/etactics.html

I don't think I'd play, but I'd sanction it as an official event if you were to put together a full scenario proposal and map and all.

[Huinesoron]

I would happily lose play a Civ3 Adventure, and report on it in my usual exhaustingve fashion.

I wouldn't want to try and install a mod (it's never gone well for me), but going by what T-hawk says I wouldn't have to anyway. Other than that, I have no input on settings; I'm happy with losing to whatever I get.

[Bobchillingworth]

Hah, I totally misread this as being for a SG instead of an Adventure. I'm much less particular about settings then, although still against using any modifications.

[ljubljana]

Bob: Demigod might be a little high, yeah; I'm certainly open to dropping this down to Emperor. The difficulty question is potentially very civ-dependent, though, as you mention. My current thoughts with respect to civ are tentative, but favor a Scientific one, to tempt people to do their own research. The other trait is more flexible, though I think Agricultural might not be the best idea due to its tendency to unpredictably lower the game's effective difficultly level. Religious might be a good choice from the perspective of allowing players to make full use of as many mechanics subsystems as possible, since it increasing the viability of multiple government switches. Scientific/Religious is a strong combo (IMO with the research buff, the strongest non-Ag one), even though the Babs have a weak UU, and possibly justifies Demigod. Definitely let me know what you guys think as far as civs are concerned.

A large map is a good suggestion. I'm actually not really sure exactly how the balance would play out, having mostly played Standard myself. Conquering a large-map AI continent in the event of a threatened culture win, in particular, might be much harder. But I'm not sure -- let me know what you think.

I'm certainly not wedded to the use of rules changes, if there is strong opposition. I mostly suggested these because (in the spirit of Sirian's Tweaks: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=59581) it seems like a small number of them could make a big difference from a balance standpoint, with the hope of making the game more fun and informative while better allowing the AI to shine. In particular, I was worried that the mere memory of the lethal-bombardment bombers added to Conquests would turn a lot of people off the game, and that their use would trivialize late-game AI continent invasions. But I am certainly open to suggestions here, up to and including no rules changes.

T-hawk: Thank you for offering to sanction this! It is certainly my intention to put together a full map and proposal, and ultimately I'd love any feedback that you'd have on any aspect of them.

Huinesoron: Glad you're on board! I remember you from T-Hawk's Civ 4 Adventures -- good to see you also still check back in here regularly

[Bobchillingworth]

Thread subscription ahoy!

My current thoughts with respect to civ are tentative, but favor a Scientific one, to tempt people to do their own research.

Interesting. I have an entirely opposite view of Scientific; the free techs make for ideal trade-bait to broker your way into either a lead or contention.

Definitely let me know what you guys think as far as civs are concerned

Babylonians are def. a tough one to place in terms of difficulty. They're overpowered on all but the most desperately poor Emperor-level maps (I'd rate Scientific as the best trait), but their crappy UU really lets them down on Demigod.

For Demigod I'd recommend playing it safe and running with something like Sumeria, Celts, Greece, Maya, or Iroquois.

If playing on Emperor, perhaps Egypt? They're on the margin of being too strong, but I think not quite as bad as the Babs. India or Japan would be comparable as well. Or Spain or England for a somewhat more challenging game. Carthage is great, but they're also my favorite civ so I'm kind of tired of playing as them :P I'd avoid Expansionist civs at all costs, gameplay is far too dependant on hut results.

Conquering a large-map AI continent in the event of a threatened culture win, in particular, might be much harder.

Do the AI even attempt Culture wins? I've only ever lost via elimination or space. The amount of culture needed to win is enormous, and the AI never receives any bonuses to its culture output.

In particular, I was worried that the mere memory of lethal-bombardment bombers added to Conquests would turn a lot of people off the game, and that their use would trivialize late-game AI continent invasions

I don't think this should be too much of an issue. The AI is reasonably good at building its own bomber flights and air superiority fighter patrols, and if the player is far enough ahead that they can carpet bomb the AI with impunity then conquest is all but assured anyway. Besides, tanks are just as effective, if not moreso.


Oh, another suggestion- ban city flips. Awful RNG-based mechanic which is either infuriating or forces the player to engage in some fairly obnoxious exploits to mitigate.

[ljubljana]

Bob: The free techs do make good trade bait, yeah. However, this seems to me equally true an helpful regardless of whether the player is doing their own research. If so, then cheap liraries and unis should tip the balance towards Scientific encouraging self-research.

Babs are tough to place, yeah. I will say that I think the difference between a bad UU like the Bowman and a mediocre one like, say, Samurai or WE, seems less significant than either the difference between two traits or between a mediocre UU and one of the handful of really unbalanced ones (Immortal, Mountain Warrior being among those).

Of the Demigod civs you suggest, I think Sumeria and Iros might be a bit much, the former having probably the best trait combo in the game and latter with a great trait combo and top UU. I'd also prefer not to have a very aggressive Ancient UU on balance, for fear of encouraging heavy early warfare, which can sometimes lead to somewhat luck-based results. I think Greece in particular would be a very good choice, though, with Sci/Com strong but not overpowered and the Hoplite helping players survive the Ancient era while not really encouraging early aggression. The Hoplite is probably a much better fit than the Bowman in that respect.

Another Demigod civ I was thinking about was the Ottomans. But, though their traits seem close to ideal, the Sipahi probably belongs with Immortals as a prohibitively strong UU.

For Emperor civs, I think we agree about the general level of civ that would be appropriate. I actually think England doesn't deserve its reputation, and belongs in the same conversation as India and Japan, especially if we go with Continents. This is because they have the best starting techs in the game in Pottery and Alphabet, letting the player pull off the Philosophy freebee most games even on Deity. While Civ3 starting techs are usually unimportant compared to Civ4, these two make a major difference, giving a great ancient age trading position plus the best possible shot at the GLib.

I agree about avoiding Expansionist on any difficulty level as too luck-dependent. Usually popping huts isn't worth it at Emperor or Demigod, but the free settlers were one of the silliest things about Civ3 IMO.

The AI does not seem to actively attempt culture wins. However, it seems to me that AI that quickly conquer their continents or large parts of a Pangaea often win by 100k culture (if the Domination threat is handled) in the late Industrial Age, requiring invasion to stave this off. Whether this will happen in this particular game is anyone's guess, although I rather hope it does, in order to show off what I believe is the AI's increased conquest ability in the current version of C3C.

You may be right about the bombers; the AI is indeed good at building its air force, and cratering every tile of an AI landmass facilitates conquest about as well as lethal bombard (ie, both make it inevitable). At least without it the player will take some losses in conquering, though, pre-tanks in particular. This can be significant on the margins, especially if it is the difference between conquest-at-flight and conqest-at-flight-plus-tanks, the latter of which gives the AI much more time to respond.

City flips are a bit silly, yeah. And they can be turned off via switch in the game setup, rather than requiring a mod, for what that is worth. I do like the element of that design that discourages the most aggressive settlements, though, and find myself wishing for a no city flips after conquest switch, as in Civ4.

[Bobchillingworth]

This is because they have the best starting techs in the game in Pottery and Alphabet, letting the player pull off the Philosophy freebee most games even on Deity. While Civ3 starting techs are usually unimportant compared to Civ4, these two make a major difference, giving a great ancient age trading position plus the best possible shot at the GLib.

Interesting. I'd rate Carthage as actually having the best techs- Masonry instead of Pottery means you can start a palace pre-build early with your second or third city, and then flip it to the Great Library as soon as Lit comes in via Philo to shave off dozens of turns. Lacking Pottery isn't too big of an issue- the AI will always trade any non-Wheel tech for Masonry, and if you don't meet an AI to sell you the tech then maxing expansion shouldn't be as vital anyway.


Tbh, everything about Carthage is wonderful. The fast workers, having 3-move boats available to build immediately to scout, the T1 bonus commerce from Seafaring, the incredibly early UU which doesn't obsolete until Cavalry (although you do have to pay through the nose for that one).