PTW?

[LLXerxes]

Do you have it? if so, was it worth it? wot patch? yadda yadda yadda yadda...
I got it. My patch is in my Siggy, and I think it was worth it. I got it
a year before coquests tho

wot about you?

[akots]

To play normally you need patch 1.27f and vanilla patched to 1.29f. With C3C you need patch 1.22f otherwise, it is essentially impossible to play.

Actually, I like PTW more than C3C if not for the palace corruption exploit.

[Lt. Killer M]

it was good as longas there was no Conquests.

Now I finally have the Civ III i wanted in the first place and I haven't looked back.


Also, I recommend patch 1.27f for PTW and 1.22 for C3C. All the rest is sub par.

[ProPain]

I think PTW is better than C3C. Why?

- FP in C3C is total crap
- Age of Science doesnt work
- Distribution of start positions is crap in C3C
- agri is overpowered

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by ProPain

I think PTW is better than C3C. Why?

- FP in C3C is total crap
- Age of Science doesnt work
- Distribution of start positions is crap in C3C
- agri is overpowered

all true, but the FP is even more crap (wins the human the game) in PTW. and RCP sucks bad. And there is no seafaring trait. And the new UUs in C3C really rock.

And PP has lately slacked in PBEMs - is that because they all are C3C - or are you really THAT busy (poor you!)?

[Kemal]

Well, I have to say I agree with PP and akots here, as I think PTW was a better game as well.

In my opinion, PTW has much better game balance than c3c has, where the inclusion of stuff such as agricultural, Statue of Zeus/ivory and the introduction of the newly improved army and scientific leaders lead to much more random elements deciding head to head games as well as epic games in general. Most of the time, we see that these things need to be agreed on or balanced by the mapmakers.

In PTW, there was less need for such balancing, with no ubertrait being present such as agricultural is, and the palace exploit being easily usable by both players, independant of any random events or balancing acts by mapmakers. Of course, the AI in PTW suffered from the palace jump/corruption exploit, and it now, in c3c, benefits from the new corruption rules. But, other exploits that are at least as severe, I feel, have filled up this slot, for example the strength of armies in c3c, and the way the AI handles this concept, or putting contact trading back to printing press allowing humans te be the middleman for ages, or introducing the concept of seafaring civs having less chance to sink at sea/ocean, while the AI doesn't use this... etc etc.

[Lt. Killer M]

kemal: true for 1vs1 PBEMs, but then again not true at all for SP. that has gotten a lot better in C3C.

[Socrates]

I'm afraid I can't decide my vote, little LLXerxes. But I suggest you installed all the latests patches, they are what save the game.

If you really want some "roots" opinions, ask some RBCivers like Sirian : he'll probably tell you that, even if C3C is more enjoyable, the most balanced version of all is Vanilla 1.29. He said that as a recent Epic was played as a hard AW game, and it was decided it would be on Vanilla 1.29 (I didn't try it, but it seems no one won it).

I can't myself decide which version is better, it depends what I want to do with it. I think I'll go with C3C 1.22 anyway, that's the best version to play multi, so... Vanilla and PTW heavily suffered of stupid gameplays like too powerful palace jumps and RCP features, which were fortunately toned down in C3C. With the SGL's now being an option, wonders can be a decent feature at last, whereas before it was too easy to get wonders, and it was breaking the gameplay (MGL's in Vanilla/PTW). Both new traits are a great addition to the game, particularly seafearing (an obvious and often a worthy trait), agricultural being too good. I for one like the idea of the SoZ and the KT, but I reckon that the ivory requirement is just unfair, it should have been an option in a conquest, not in the epic game. And I disagree with PP heavily : the FP is MUCH better in C3C 1.22 than ever before. At last you have to think about where and when to place it !

All in all C3C 1.22 is playable, but I fear (or let's say I'd heavily like ) that at the moment I play Civ4, I'll forget about Civ3. There are many things that I can't stand in this game anymore, maybe I'll write more about it (again) soon.

[Kemal]

I might be biased because of my years at the gotm as mass-empire builder (very probable! ), as I think C3C's SP is different than PTW, perhaps not necessarily worse as a game to enjoy, as it does have lots of new features, but certainly less balanced I feel.

For example, contrary to almost all my games I ran as empire builder in gotm in PTW times, C3C forces the player to go to war even when doing the science - space race game. There is really little alternative as you will need the extra territory to set up large cities for the extra science the specialists generate, or face the facts that you will research more than twice as slow. And I feel that conquering the AI has become an utter piece of cake with the introduction of (cavalry) armies, making conquering even more attractive when compared to doing a peaceful builder game. So another example of where the balance is gone, military vs peaceful approach is a clear win for military in c3c whatever type of victory you aspire.

In that sense, I feel not just PBEM but even the SP game is less balanced than it used to be in PTW, where winning games in good fashion using no wars was as viable a tactic as dominating the world using military.

[Lt. Killer M]

kemal: there you go, talking about Sid level games