Another Pointless Add-On

I am a self-professed Civ 3 addict, perhaps not as much as the good folks on www.civfanatics.com, who appear to have a bit too much free time on their hands, but enough so, that I've become familiar with many of the game's subtle points. And although I go through phases in which I temporarily lose interest, I always seem to come back to the game again, and I can never get enough of it. Thus, in my impatience for Civilization 4 (being released near the end of 2005), I broke down and purchased the Conequsts add-on. For me, it was all new, but that was because I never purchased the Civ 3: Play the World expansion which came out previously. Purchasers should beware that only some of the game's features are actually new add-ons, as Conquests encompasses the additions from the Play the World add-on.

At first glance, I was delighted, and it seemed like a major overhaul on the game. Unfortunately, upon further playing, I quickly discovered that this add-on pack suffers from the same curse as every other add-on I've ever played. Perhaps it's the nature of the add-ons, as they are in actuality, a cheap marketing technique designed to exploit the success of a game and fans' impatience for the sequel. For instance, I can't even count the number of Sims expansion packs that have been released by this point, many of which simply add on new job tracks or objects that become dull in about one week's worth of play. And that's basically the same problem here.

The first major addition is the new tribes added to the game, which is one of the most rewarding aspects of Conquests, and one of the only things that could make it worth purchasing. Now you can play as the Sumerians, the Hitties, and the Celts, among others. What's more, there are new attributes particular to certain tribes. Previously, you could have a civilization that was religious, for example, which allowed you to build temples faster and change government types without long periods of anarchy. The new attributes are Agricultural (which is actually quite useful for building large numbers of cities quickly in that it provides you with extra food and the ability to build graneries quickly that rapidly expand the size of your cities) and Seafaring (which is much less useful, enabling safer and faster sea travel). Many of the new tribes possess these new attributes, but some of the pre-existing civilizations are modified by them as well. In particular, the English are now slightly worth using (previously earning the privilege of being the worst tribe in the game, with the worthless expansionist attribute replaced by seafaring, making them slightly less useless).

Now this might seem like an exciting new approach to the game, having so many new tribes and new attributes. But in truth, many of the new tribes play virtually identically to already-existing tribes. In Civ 3, what truly distinguishes the tribes is not so much the attributes they possess as the special unit that only it has the ability to build. For instance, the Persians (which existing in the original Civ 3) were the only tribe that could build the Immortals, a ridiculously powerful unit for the time period in which it could be built. This enables different tribes to have an advantage at war in certain time periods. However, several of the new units are actually inferior versions of units that any tribe can build, rendering that new tribe essentially worthless in battle, a big feature of the game. For instance, there's a redone version of the knight, which has the ability to move faster at the cost of being weaker. One of the few new units that's actually worth something and isn't a clone of an already-existing unit with a different graphic (and you can easily get different graphics without buying this game by going to www.civfanatics.com and downloading any of their graphic mods) is the Ottomans' version of the Cavalry, which provides an 8 attack as opposed to the normal 6, a significant bonus in the late middle ages. As many of the new units are quite worthless, and the number of tribes has been significantly increased, the imbalance between tribes that plagued the first game (where it's much easier to win using one tribe than another) is even worse.

The game also promises to add several civilization advances on the technology tree, but in actuality, they are few and far between. Most of the new civilization advances are present in the "conquests," which are mini-game variations on Civ 3, such as Mesopotamia, in which you can now research Wood Working. I personally have found these variations on the game, in which you start out with certain units (and at times even towns) and have a particular mission, to be restrictive and uninteresting. I prefer to start a new game and have the freedom to build my civilization however I see fit without special rules, and I think that's because that's what makes Civ 3 great, that you can play it millions of times, and it's always a different game. However, using the pre-made "conquests," that's simply no longer the case. And the new civilization advances promised to come with the game are not only often exclusive to the conquests, but that's also true about some of the new military units and resources on the map available, and that's simply not good enough.

There are a few new resources you get the advantage of in a regular new game, such as tobacco and sugar cane. However, these are again simply new graphics that play no differently from the pre-existing resources such as grapes or furs. And I've found that as a result of adding several new resources to the game, many of the game maps have an imbalance not present in the original Civ 3, where the probability of acquiring such necessary resources as iron or saltpeter (the only way to build military units like a cavalry) becomes much less. As a result, I had one game with the aforementioned Ottomans where I controlled at least a fourth of the map, but was unable to make use of their unique military unit that replaces the cavalry because none of my terrain had access to saltpeter, making the game completely worthless as my units became too weak to take on those of other nations.

The new World Wonders are somewhat more valuable to the way the game plays, because that's one thing about the game you want more of. In the original Civ 3, it's next to impossible to build the world wonder you want on high levels of difficulty, such as the essential Great Library (which gives you any civilization advance that two other tribes already possess, in a game where scientific research is both necessary to beat the game through any method and quite difficult to do well). This problem is avoided somewhat because with the large number of world wonders present in the Conquests add-on, the probability of you building the one you want is increased. As for the new world wonders, some of them do actually add new ways of playing the game, such as the Knights Templar, which automatically produces a Crusader unit (a powerful middle ages unit that only the tribe who possesses this world wonder can build) every five turns. This is a valuable feature for those who love to play militaristically, and it does truly enrich the game. However, other new world wonders are hardly worth the effort they involve to produce, such as The Temple of Artemis. At first, it sounds great, as it puts a temple in every city, but by the time you have the ability to build it, if you haven't already built temples, your cities will be in bad shape (or at least your production hindered to make your citizens happy without temples).

The game also boasts several new ways to win. For instance, each tribe can start with a king unit to protect, and you have to kill the other tribes' units, or you can essentially play a game of capture the flag. As with the conquests that come with the game, however, I don't see the point of such add-ons in a game like Civ 3, which is only exciting in its infinite possibilities, rather than being restrictive. Such an add-on seems like it would be more at home with a game like Warcraft 3, where each level provides specific challenges, and players would want new rules and challenges. But in Civ 3, these add-ons actually make the game less interesting.

Also worthy of mention is that the AI is improved somewhat in the game, making an already difficult game even more challenging. The best example of this is with the barbarian units in the ancient era, that previously charged mindlessly into your cities like moths to a flame, even if you had the city adequately protected. In this expansion game, the barbarians now will fortify themselves your towns and will not necessarily attack any unit or town one square adjacent to them. And if you still can't get enough challenge, the game has two added levels of difficulty up to "Sid" (for creator Sid Meier), as if you'll need to take advantage of that level of difficulty (I have yet to attempt it, because I find the fourth level of difficulty to be challenge enough).

All in all, the problem with Conquests is not that it fails to add enough features, but that it's simply going to be of no value to anyone who isn't madly in love with Civ 3 to the point that they need some add-ons. And even for those who love the game like me, it will not so greatly enrich the gameplay that it feels like a whole new game, but rather will provide a minor diversion from the usual method of playing. Save your money for Civ 4.