G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)
After several comfortable victories at regent level Civ3 vanilla, I
thought I'd give the huge map and 16 civs a go before promoting myself
to monarch.
I lost and, perhaps, looking for excuses it seemed to me that I'd been
pretty unlucky with the geography. I was given a thin strip of an island
with no luxuries and, as it turned out, only iron, oil and aluminium as
resources. I made a beeline for mapmaking but only to discover that I
was near one largish and one large continent which had been pretty well
settled.
I got about 10 cities on this island and, as there seemed no possibility
of further expansion I thought I'd aim for a culture or diplomatic
victory. But 10 cities is not much especially on a huge map, so I gave
in to temptation formed a settlement in the large continent which was
later trashed by the dominant civ there, and invaded the nearer larger
continent after the single civ there gratuitously declared war.
I captured one town with horses resource but I spent virtually the rest
of the game defending it. I don't think I would have won anyway but the
amount of military investment relative to its contribution to my civ
made it certain. In the end, I was dragged into a long war, had to go
into communism and there was no way of catching up.
The AI civs which thrived had large landmasses with rivers, luxuries and
resources. Those that didn't, including mine, had smaller areas with few
luxuries etc. Seemed pretty damned unfair to me.
So, my question is: how much does geography play a part in winning or
losing, begging the wider question of how much of this game is luck and
how much skill?
--
Joe Soap
After several comfortable victories at regent level Civ3 vanilla, I
thought I'd give the huge map and 16 civs a go before promoting myself
to monarch.
I lost and, perhaps, looking for excuses it seemed to me that I'd been
pretty unlucky with the geography. I was given a thin strip of an island
with no luxuries and, as it turned out, only iron, oil and aluminium as
resources. I made a beeline for mapmaking but only to discover that I
was near one largish and one large continent which had been pretty well
settled.
I got about 10 cities on this island and, as there seemed no possibility
of further expansion I thought I'd aim for a culture or diplomatic
victory. But 10 cities is not much especially on a huge map, so I gave
in to temptation formed a settlement in the large continent which was
later trashed by the dominant civ there, and invaded the nearer larger
continent after the single civ there gratuitously declared war.
I captured one town with horses resource but I spent virtually the rest
of the game defending it. I don't think I would have won anyway but the
amount of military investment relative to its contribution to my civ
made it certain. In the end, I was dragged into a long war, had to go
into communism and there was no way of catching up.
The AI civs which thrived had large landmasses with rivers, luxuries and
resources. Those that didn't, including mine, had smaller areas with few
luxuries etc. Seemed pretty damned unfair to me.
So, my question is: how much does geography play a part in winning or
losing, begging the wider question of how much of this game is luck and
how much skill?
--
Joe Soap