The most bizarre victory I've ever had!

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Hi guys!

Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the talk of
Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing done. I have
improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still seem to get bullied by a
bigger nation, only surviving due to paying them money, but that's not what
I wanted to say LOL

I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent difficulty
level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a volcano. Obviously
not a wise decision, but I'd never done it before, and it was my starting
position, so I thought I'd do it anyway.

After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I made not
making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became active. It then
erupted, and I was declared winner due to a conquests victory! I didn't
know what on earth had happened. But then I looked at the timeline thing,
showing the different events, and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but
obviously due to a fault or something, I won! I got the highest rank on the
hammer fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't believe
it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened to anyone else?!

But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get anywhere
at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers, making sure roads
connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation until I get Monarchy or
Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so I can trade, as soon as
possible, but the problem is that one civ, or two, seems to get really
advanced, and I can't keep up. They then nick all the best areas, and my
cities which I place to get resources or luxuries end up flipping to those
other civs. I end up having a small nation, only surviving as I keep paying
off the bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game I
would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do well as
the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really know what it is I
should do to keep up with the other civs. Should I build a huge army and go
on a military expedition and get power that way? I thought that wouldn't be
a good idea as the other civs always get a strong army at the start. But
that is all I can think of that I could do.

Any (more) hints and tips would be hugely appreciated! I don't really want
to know a way in which to guarantee victory and what not, just ways in which
I should improve my game, as I'm obviously doing something wrong.
Obviously, because of the strange fault in the game, I have now won on
Regent, but I want to do it properly too.

Thank you in advance!

Oh, I played Civ online the other day too! it works surprisingly well,
although it did crash a couple of times, which is obviously not what you
need. But in the end, it turns out that "play by email" is the way to play,
as then not only can you save your game, it is never going to crash, and you
can play when you want. It's really easy to do as well, as doesn't really
take any more time. So if you are going to play online, I think that is the
best way to do it! Good fun! I think you guys should all arrange a game!

Contro.
45 answers Last reply
More about bizarre victory
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > Hi guys!
    >
    > Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the talk of
    > Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing done. I have
    > improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still seem to get bullied by
    a
    > bigger nation, only surviving due to paying them money, but that's not
    what
    > I wanted to say LOL
    >
    > I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent difficulty
    > level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a volcano.
    Obviously
    > not a wise decision, but I'd never done it before, and it was my starting
    > position, so I thought I'd do it anyway.
    >
    > After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I made
    not
    > making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became active. It then
    > erupted, and I was declared winner due to a conquests victory! I didn't
    > know what on earth had happened. But then I looked at the timeline thing,
    > showing the different events, and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but
    > obviously due to a fault or something, I won! I got the highest rank on
    the
    > hammer fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
    > kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    believe
    > it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened to anyone
    else?!
    >
    > But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get
    anywhere
    > at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers, making sure roads
    > connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation until I get Monarchy or
    > Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so I can trade, as soon as
    > possible, but the problem is that one civ, or two, seems to get really
    > advanced, and I can't keep up. They then nick all the best areas, and my
    > cities which I place to get resources or luxuries end up flipping to those
    > other civs. I end up having a small nation, only surviving as I keep
    paying
    > off the bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game
    I
    > would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do well as
    > the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really know what it is
    I
    > should do to keep up with the other civs. Should I build a huge army and
    go
    > on a military expedition and get power that way? I thought that wouldn't
    be
    > a good idea as the other civs always get a strong army at the start. But
    > that is all I can think of that I could do.
    >
    > Any (more) hints and tips would be hugely appreciated! I don't really
    want
    > to know a way in which to guarantee victory and what not, just ways in
    which
    > I should improve my game, as I'm obviously doing something wrong.
    > Obviously, because of the strange fault in the game, I have now won on
    > Regent, but I want to do it properly too.
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > Oh, I played Civ online the other day too! it works surprisingly well,
    > although it did crash a couple of times, which is obviously not what you
    > need. But in the end, it turns out that "play by email" is the way to
    play,
    > as then not only can you save your game, it is never going to crash, and
    you
    > can play when you want. It's really easy to do as well, as doesn't really
    > take any more time. So if you are going to play online, I think that is
    the
    > best way to do it! Good fun! I think you guys should all arrange a game!
    >
    > Contro.
    >
    >

    I'm a novice at Civ3...but some things I've learned hopefully not too off
    the mark.
    CivI and II, I eventually got to where I could win regularly. But I can't
    get a good handle on Civ3. For the hours I've put into it, I'd think I'd be
    expert by now...but I still play at warlord level for the very reasons you
    outline here. I like a fighting chance...and this means to me the ability
    to have a sizable civilization at the start. Even at warlord, the other
    nations cut you off pretty quickly, building cities that block you pretty
    early. So, one thing I do now is play in an Archeplego world. This usually
    gives me time that I can build at least a competitive empire before
    mapmaking allows other civs to land on my shores and start building to block
    me off. 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the game.
    I think the designers emphasized 'negotiations' with competitor civs as a
    key to 'winning'. I've learned that you can get a sense of the 'research'
    train that the other civs are taking [they tend to act along the same lines
    too]. If you research 'trains' of discovery others aren't, then it makes
    the tech advances you have more valuable in trade. Look into trading
    immediatly after gaining a new tech advance too I think...and all in the
    same turn. If you trade a tech to one civ, better bet it will be in the
    hands of the other civs by the very next turn [negating your chance to
    profit from trading it yourself]. Oh, here's something that's really helped
    me; instead of 'offering or asking' trades on my own, I use the computer by
    asking 'what would you give me for this or that...' or 'what would you want
    for this or that...'. I found that I was miserably underselling things.

    Key tech advances that the games seems to hinge upon...Military Tradition
    for building Cavalry unit and 'replaceable parts' for building Infantry.

    Powerful early units: Immortals for the Persians, Legionaries for the
    Romans, and what I found 'best' are the Mounted Warriors for the Iriquois.
    The Mounted Warriors are like early cavalry that can withdraw from battle if
    they are losing...powerful in the early game [horsemen can do this but
    aren't as powerful].

    I still haven't got a good handle on what Wonders are most advantageous. In
    the last game Leonardo's workshop tilted the game decidedly in my favor. I
    still go for the 'happy face' wonders...the ones that make more citizens
    content or reverses unhappiness in some way; these allow me to be in
    Republic or Democracy and still be able to carry on war if needed [or on
    purpose]. I'd like to hear what others have to say on the Wonders...which
    one's stand out for strategic benefit etc.

    I've won a space race and two games of conquest now...so perhaps I'll move
    on to the next level, lol.
    Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip after
    that victory?
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    > Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip after
    > that victory?

    Yeah won a fair few when i was playing Vanilla Civ3 on Warlord or Regent,
    seems to be harder to achieve in PTW or Conquests
    Nah the only Vid is for the Space Victory
    I miss the old Wonder Movies and the Advisors :(

    --
    John Simpson
    http://nighthawk.mine.nu/

    "Quantum Physics: The dreams stuff is made of."
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the game."

    That's my philosophy in Civ III as well. Personally, I love to
    micromanage my cities, so I've never used the City governor feature. I
    love exploring early and finding goody huts, gaining strategic city
    locations before my neighbors, making good trades, getting important
    wonders like Pyramids and Leonardo's Work Shop built first, improving
    the terrain for maximum city production and growth, etc. Nothing
    pisses me off more than having made a good relation with a neighbor
    (not the Germans, they're too predictable) and have them invade within
    a few turns of a ROP. You get this more on Emperor and above which is
    why I usually play Monarch even though I can beat the game on higher
    levels. It's just more fun when we all can get along. Of course,
    there's nothing better than a war with tanks against a neighbor with
    pikemen and archers defending his cities. This is part of what I love
    about CivIII.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In article <0PDBc.694$%n6.68@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    >
    >I'm a novice at Civ3...but some things I've learned hopefully not too off
    >the mark. CivI and II, I eventually got to where I could win regularly. But I can't
    >get a good handle on Civ3. For the hours I've put into it, I'd think I'd be
    >expert by now...but I still play at warlord level for the very reasons you
    >outline here. I like a fighting chance...and this means to me the ability
    >to have a sizable civilization at the start.

    You always get behind at the start. The higher the difficulty the longer it
    takes to climb out of the hole.


    >Even at warlord, the other
    >nations cut you off pretty quickly, building cities that block you pretty
    >early. So, one thing I do now is play in an Archeplego world. This usually
    >gives me time that I can build at least a competitive empire before
    >mapmaking allows other civs to land on my shores and start building to block
    >me off. 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the game.

    Bingo. If the game is not drawing you in, why play it?


    >I think the designers emphasized 'negotiations' with competitor civs as a
    >key to 'winning'. I've learned that you can get a sense of the 'research'
    >train that the other civs are taking [they tend to act along the same lines
    >too]. If you research 'trains' of discovery others aren't, then it makes
    >the tech advances you have more valuable in trade. Look into trading
    >immediatly after gaining a new tech advance too I think...and all in the
    >same turn.

    When your Science advisor asks "What shall we research next?" hit the big
    picture button, then click on your Foreign Advisor and start swapping the tech.
    I keep notes on how large each of the other Empires are (and what Luxuries
    they have and Resources they lack). I start by trading my bright new tech to
    the biggest (and presumably richest) Empire and work my way down. My goal is
    to get huge gold-per-turn deals. This cripples their research and enhances
    mine so four turns later...


    >If you trade a tech to one civ, better bet it will be in the
    >hands of the other civs by the very next turn [negating your chance to
    >profit from trading it yourself].

    The value of the tech declines when more Empires have it. Your first customer
    will pay top dollar (if he has the wherewithal) while you last customer will
    give you chump change. The Ai will give other AIs a discount when swapping
    tech if the customer is broke.

    A tech that has a Wonder associated with it that has not been completed is
    highly valued by the AI. I always trade mine away the turn before I complete
    the Wonder.


    >Oh, here's something that's really helped
    >me; instead of 'offering or asking' trades on my own, I use the computer by
    >asking 'what would you give me for this or that...' or 'what would you want
    >for this or that...'. I found that I was miserably underselling things.

    :-) Always play the "How high will you go?" game.

    Sell Luxuries one at a time. Wait a turn or two before selling the second
    one. The second one is always more valuable than the first.


    >Key tech advances that the games seems to hinge upon...Military Tradition
    >for building Cavalry unit and 'replaceable parts' for building Infantry.

    Mathematics with Ivory for the Temple of Zeus. Chivalry for Knights
    and the Templars. Literature for the Great Library.

    Another trick is to get you neighbors to build the key wonders for you while
    you are building military units. In a little while you will have both the
    units and the Wonder.

    If you have a chance at capturing the Great Library _don't_ research or
    accept Education. I once captured the Great Library and got Education,
    Banking, Astronomy, Chemistry, Democracy, Navigation, Physics, Metallurgy, and
    Military Tradition for instant tech parity.

    One does not normally think of Knights as research tools, but since the
    Vikings didn't have Saltpeter...


    >Powerful early units: Immortals for the Persians, Legionaries for the
    >Romans, and what I found 'best' are the Mounted Warriors for the Iriquois.
    >The Mounted Warriors are like early cavalry that can withdraw from battle if
    >they are losing...powerful in the early game [horsemen can do this but
    >aren't as powerful].

    Gallic Swordsmen (3-2-2) rule. Berserks (6-2-1 amphibious) can win the game
    before Steam Power.

    Oddly enough War Elephants aren't too shabby either. Their stats (4-3-2) are no
    big deal but they don't require any strategic resources. The Jaguar Warrior
    (1-1-2) has no requirements at all (the Aztecs start with Warrior Code) so you
    can build them from the start without research.

    >I still haven't got a good handle on what Wonders are most advantageous. In
    >the last game Leonardo's workshop tilted the game decidedly in my favor. I
    >still go for the 'happy face' wonders...the ones that make more citizens
    >content or reverses unhappiness in some way; these allow me to be in
    >Republic or Democracy and still be able to carry on war if needed [or on
    >purpose]. I'd like to hear what others have to say on the Wonders...which
    >one's stand out for strategic benefit etc.

    The ones I find most generally useful are the Pyramids, Sun Tzu's, Adam Smith,
    and the Internet (if the game goes that long). If I have Ivory or can get it
    I go for the Temple of Zeus. If I lack Iron I want the Knights Templar. On
    archipelago maps the Great Light House is normally better than the Pyramids.


    >I've won a space race and two games of conquest now...so perhaps I'll move
    >on to the next level, lol.

    The higher the difficulty the faster the research.

    >Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip after
    >that victory?

    No, the spaceship victory is the only one with a video.


    Mike G
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    tooly wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> Hi guys!
    >>
    >> Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the
    >> talk of Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing
    >> done. I have improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still
    >> seem to get bullied by a bigger nation, only surviving due to paying
    >> them money, but that's not what I wanted to say LOL
    >>
    >> I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent
    >> difficulty level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a
    >> volcano. Obviously not a wise decision, but I'd never done it
    >> before, and it was my starting position, so I thought I'd do it
    >> anyway.
    >>
    >> After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I
    >> made not making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became
    >> active. It then erupted, and I was declared winner due to a
    >> conquests victory! I didn't know what on earth had happened. But
    >> then I looked at the timeline thing, showing the different events,
    >> and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but obviously due to a fault
    >> or something, I won! I got the highest rank on the hammer
    >> fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
    >> kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    >> believe it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened
    >> to anyone else?!
    >>
    >> But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get
    >> anywhere at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers,
    >> making sure roads connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation
    >> until I get Monarchy or Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so
    >> I can trade, as soon as possible, but the problem is that one civ,
    >> or two, seems to get really advanced, and I can't keep up. They
    >> then nick all the best areas, and my cities which I place to get
    >> resources or luxuries end up flipping to those other civs. I end up
    >> having a small nation, only surviving as I keep paying off the
    >> bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game I
    >> would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do
    >> well as the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really
    >> know what it is I should do to keep up with the other civs. Should
    >> I build a huge army and go on a military expedition and get power
    >> that way? I thought that wouldn't be a good idea as the other civs
    >> always get a strong army at the start. But that is all I can think
    >> of that I could do.
    >>
    >> Any (more) hints and tips would be hugely appreciated! I don't
    >> really want to know a way in which to guarantee victory and what
    >> not, just ways in which I should improve my game, as I'm obviously
    >> doing something wrong. Obviously, because of the strange fault in
    >> the game, I have now won on Regent, but I want to do it properly too.
    >>
    >> Thank you in advance!
    >>
    >> Oh, I played Civ online the other day too! it works surprisingly
    >> well, although it did crash a couple of times, which is obviously
    >> not what you need. But in the end, it turns out that "play by
    >> email" is the way to play, as then not only can you save your game,
    >> it is never going to crash, and you can play when you want. It's
    >> really easy to do as well, as doesn't really take any more time. So
    >> if you are going to play online, I think that is the best way to do
    >> it! Good fun! I think you guys should all arrange a game!
    >>
    >> Contro.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > I'm a novice at Civ3...but some things I've learned hopefully not too
    > off the mark.
    > CivI and II, I eventually got to where I could win regularly. But I
    > can't get a good handle on Civ3. For the hours I've put into it, I'd
    > think I'd be expert by now...but I still play at warlord level for
    > the very reasons you outline here. I like a fighting chance...and
    > this means to me the ability to have a sizable civilization at the
    > start.

    Yes, I know what you mean. I have finished Warlord, so I have now moved
    onto Regent. That isn't to say that I'm good enough to win Warlord on a
    regular basis (I have actually only won it once), but I felt that I might as
    well move along, as I know I'm not that great at the game, and to be able to
    improve would help by being on a harder level I felt. For me anyway. I do
    have a feeling that you'd probably be better than I would be on Regent
    level!

    Even at warlord, the other nations cut you off pretty
    > quickly, building cities that block you pretty early. So, one thing
    > I do now is play in an Archeplego world.

    I used to always make the game have a specified type and size of world, but
    now I set it to Random. Again, really for the purposes of not giving myself
    a world that would suit me. But, as it happens, I don't like the idea of
    being on a Archipelago set up, as I don't like all the seafaring and things!
    LOL I prefer moving about by land. All that ship business is a part I'm
    not that fussed about. It's not a civ thing, but on all games where you
    have to transport troops by ships, I really don't like doing that kind of
    thing. But if I end up on a Archipelago set up, then so be it.

    This usually gives me time
    > that I can build at least a competitive empire before mapmaking
    > allows other civs to land on my shores and start building to block me
    > off. 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the
    > game. I think the designers emphasized 'negotiations' with competitor
    > civs as a key to 'winning'. I've learned that you can get a sense of
    > the 'research' train that the other civs are taking [they tend to act
    > along the same lines too]. If you research 'trains' of discovery
    > others aren't, then it makes the tech advances you have more valuable
    > in trade. Look into trading immediatly after gaining a new tech
    > advance too I think...and all in the same turn. If you trade a tech
    > to one civ, better bet it will be in the hands of the other civs by
    > the very next turn [negating your chance to profit from trading it
    > yourself]. Oh, here's something that's really helped me; instead of
    > 'offering or asking' trades on my own, I use the computer by asking
    > 'what would you give me for this or that...' or 'what would you want
    > for this or that...'. I found that I was miserably underselling
    > things.
    >

    The usual problems I have with this is that the computer doesn't have
    anything more than a tech to offer. If they have some money as well, I get
    as much as they have too, but otherwise I just have to accept what they have
    got to offer, otherwise I'd be behind myself. But yes, I will try this
    anyway, to see if I can get any better offers (such as so much gold a turn
    or what not).

    > Key tech advances that the games seems to hinge upon...Military
    > Tradition for building Cavalry unit and 'replaceable parts' for
    > building Infantry.
    >
    > Powerful early units: Immortals for the Persians, Legionaries for the
    > Romans, and what I found 'best' are the Mounted Warriors for the
    > Iriquois. The Mounted Warriors are like early cavalry that can
    > withdraw from battle if they are losing...powerful in the early game
    > [horsemen can do this but aren't as powerful].

    I do certainly like the Legionaires! But I never usually make horsemen. I
    probably should, but they can not be improved later on, which is a pain.
    But that wonder (statue of zeus I think it is) that gives you all those
    ancient cavalry, is very handy earlier on, it has to be said!

    >
    > I still haven't got a good handle on what Wonders are most
    > advantageous. In the last game Leonardo's workshop tilted the game
    > decidedly in my favor. I still go for the 'happy face' wonders...the
    > ones that make more citizens content or reverses unhappiness in some
    > way; these allow me to be in Republic or Democracy and still be able
    > to carry on war if needed [or on purpose]. I'd like to hear what
    > others have to say on the Wonders...which one's stand out for
    > strategic benefit etc.

    Well, I hear say that the Great Library is a great one to have, as you get
    two of your oponents tech advances. There is also the Universal Sufferage
    (I think it is that one, not sure now) that gives you two straight tech
    advances too. Those are handy!

    >
    > I've won a space race and two games of conquest now...so perhaps I'll
    > move on to the next level, lol.
    > Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip
    > after that victory?

    Yes, I won a space race on Warlord when I played it. Not done conquest
    though. I think I might have been able to manage that, if I didn't aim for
    the space race one. But not sure!

    Thanks for that help though! I think I'm okay on a few things with Civ, but
    seem to just have a bit of trouble at the start. But maybe it's just the
    way the game is, and that you have to have a bit of luck. But then I hear
    about some guys on here who are making nuclear weapons by the 1500's or so!
    But I don't know if that is through playing it "properly" or through
    "milking" the game. But either way, I am sure I could be playing it a
    little better. But I'm getting there. I think I just need to have another
    go, and play through on Regent and see how it goes in the later periods of
    time, and see if I can get ahead.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    John Simpson wrote:
    >> Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip
    >> after that victory?
    >
    > Yeah won a fair few when i was playing Vanilla Civ3 on Warlord or
    > Regent, seems to be harder to achieve in PTW or Conquests
    > Nah the only Vid is for the Space Victory
    > I miss the old Wonder Movies and the Advisors :(

    They should definitely have the videos. I don't know why they left them
    out!
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Aqualung wrote:
    > 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the game."

    LOL very true! When I say I want to win, I mean that I want to get better
    at the game. Obviously when you get slaughtered by the opposition, it isn't
    that enjoyable after a while, so improving is what makes the game even
    better. I win on one difficulty level, then try the next. I hear from a
    lot of people that Monarch is the best level to play at (which you also say
    lower down), so I think once I get there, I'll settle on that, at least for
    a while.

    >
    > That's my philosophy in Civ III as well. Personally, I love to
    > micromanage my cities, so I've never used the City governor feature.

    City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    I
    > love exploring early and finding goody huts, gaining strategic city
    > locations before my neighbors, making good trades, getting important
    > wonders like Pyramids and Leonardo's Work Shop built first, improving
    > the terrain for maximum city production and growth, etc.

    Here is part of my problem. I just can't get those wonders built first
    (early on anyway), as I'm just too far behind. I just don't understand why
    I get so far behind. I'm on Regent difficulty, so it's not like it's a
    really really hard level.

    Nothing
    > pisses me off more than having made a good relation with a neighbor
    > (not the Germans, they're too predictable) and have them invade within
    > a few turns of a ROP. You get this more on Emperor and above which is
    > why I usually play Monarch even though I can beat the game on higher
    > levels. It's just more fun when we all can get along. Of course,
    > there's nothing better than a war with tanks against a neighbor with
    > pikemen and archers defending his cities. This is part of what I love
    > about CivIII.

    LOL the game certainly is good fun, and there is nothing like being a world
    leader, and the struggles needed to be undertaken to get there! Just wish I
    could manage it at the moment! LOL
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >
    > City Governor Feature?! What is that?!

    Seriously?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In article <cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:

    > But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get anywhere
    > at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers, making sure roads
    > connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation until I get Monarchy or
    > Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so I can trade, as soon as
    > possible, but the problem is that one civ, or two, seems to get really
    > advanced, and I can't keep up. They then nick all the best areas, and my
    > cities which I place to get resources or luxuries end up flipping to those
    > other civs. I end up having a small nation, only surviving as I keep paying
    > off the bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game I
    > would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do well as
    > the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really know what it is I
    > should do to keep up with the other civs. Should I build a huge army and go
    > on a military expedition and get power that way? I thought that wouldn't be
    > a good idea as the other civs always get a strong army at the start. But
    > that is all I can think of that I could do.

    Well, can you send a link to a save-file? Perhaps some of us could take
    a look and suggest possibilities that may not have occured to you.

    --
    Ambarish
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:16:33 -0400, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Contro"
    ><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> Hi guys!
    >>
    >> Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the talk of
    >> Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing done. I have
    >> improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still seem to get bullied by
    >a
    >> bigger nation, only surviving due to paying them money, but that's not
    >what
    >> I wanted to say LOL
    >>
    >> I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent difficulty
    >> level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a volcano.
    >Obviously
    >> not a wise decision, but I'd never done it before, and it was my starting
    >> position, so I thought I'd do it anyway.
    >>
    >> After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I made
    >not
    >> making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became active. It then
    >> erupted, and I was declared winner due to a conquests victory! I didn't
    >> know what on earth had happened. But then I looked at the timeline thing,
    >> showing the different events, and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but
    >> obviously due to a fault or something, I won! I got the highest rank on
    >the
    >> hammer fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
    >> kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    >believe
    >> it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened to anyone
    >else?!

    I've never won by such an accident, but I've lost due to being wiped
    out by barbarians and such. It gives the AI a big victory! Maybe
    when the volcano does it, it counts like a win for you because it
    happens on your turn or something like that?


    >
    >I'm a novice at Civ3...but some things I've learned hopefully not too off
    >the mark.
    >CivI and II, I eventually got to where I could win regularly. But I can't
    >get a good handle on Civ3. For the hours I've put into it, I'd think I'd be
    >expert by now...but I still play at warlord level for the very reasons you
    >outline here. I like a fighting chance...and this means to me the ability
    >to have a sizable civilization at the start. Even at warlord, the other
    >nations cut you off pretty quickly, building cities that block you pretty
    >early. So, one thing I do now is play in an Archeplego world. This usually
    >gives me time that I can build at least a competitive empire before
    >mapmaking allows other civs to land on my shores and start building to block
    >me off. 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the game.
    >I think the designers emphasized 'negotiations' with competitor civs as a
    >key to 'winning'.

    By design, Civ3 emphasizes trade and diplomacy. Far more than any
    other version of the game. Once you understand how to play the trade
    game -- mostly, it means asking what they'll give you for something
    and watch what your never-wrong advisor says -- you can do pretty
    well. Oh, you need to be active and aggressive in trading, trying to
    sell and buy techs often.

    > I've learned that you can get a sense of the 'research'
    >train that the other civs are taking [they tend to act along the same lines
    >too]. If you research 'trains' of discovery others aren't, then it makes
    >the tech advances you have more valuable in trade. Look into trading
    >immediatly after gaining a new tech advance too I think...and all in the
    >same turn. If you trade a tech to one civ, better bet it will be in the
    >hands of the other civs by the very next turn [negating your chance to
    >profit from trading it yourself]. Oh, here's something that's really helped
    >me; instead of 'offering or asking' trades on my own, I use the computer by
    >asking 'what would you give me for this or that...' or 'what would you want
    >for this or that...'. I found that I was miserably underselling things.

    Absolutely. Know that the AI's offers are often not ideal either --
    you can use that to give you a ballpark range, then adjust it. Add
    stuff, a bit of gold or whatever, and see if your advisor says that it
    is acceptable or not. Your advisor is never wrong about this.

    Also, that trade it all in one turn thing is certain. The only
    reason *not* to do it is if you hold out hope that no other AI will
    sell the thing for a turn or two, but that isn't likely unless the
    other AIs lack communications, or are just too poor to buy anything.
    In the latter case, though, unless they come into some cash, you're
    still just as well off selling it cheap, or giving it away (the AI
    likes gifts, and if they are below gracious to you, it doesn't hurt to
    keep them friendly).


    >I've won a space race and two games of conquest now...so perhaps I'll move
    >on to the next level, lol.
    >Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip after
    >that victory?

    Only space gives a movie, the others just tell you that you've won
    (sigh, Civ2 had cool movies).

    Cultural and domination victories are related -- both work best if
    you have a massive civilization. More cities means more places to
    generate culture, and more cities also means more territory for the
    domination condition (and population, you also need population for
    that).

    But single city culture victory is possible on any size map, any
    difficulty level. The only hassle is getting a good city capable of
    making lots of wonders on its own, and getting the tech so that you
    can build them before the AI does. I had a game with a
    mountain/hill/flood plain area, so the city at size 12 early in the
    game had loads of production. It wasn't my capital, but it was so
    good for making wonders that I built them all there. Had coal and
    iron too, which paid off big later.


    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:10:29 GMT, "The Stare"
    <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Contro"
    ><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>
    >> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >
    >Seriously?
    >

    Just in case he's never used it , it lets the city decide which units
    or improvements to build each turn based on mood, production, food,
    etc criteria. Right click on any city and it's in the section next to
    draft citizen or in the city status screen, it's the head icon next to
    your production shields.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    To the last question. Yes, I've had a Cultural victory and by accident. I
    pissed me off actually because I was working on a Conquest victory, and then
    !poof! the game ends. So I played on and wiped everyone out anyway. I was
    either Rome or Persia at Warlord level. I don't play the vid clips, so I
    don't know if one is played. However, the other contestants are quite
    gratious and are happy that you won.

    ..
    "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:0PDBc.694$%n6.68@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > > Hi guys!
    > >
    > > Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the talk of
    > > Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing done. I have
    > > improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still seem to get bullied
    by
    > a
    > > bigger nation, only surviving due to paying them money, but that's not
    > what
    > > I wanted to say LOL
    > >
    > > I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent difficulty
    > > level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a volcano.
    > Obviously
    > > not a wise decision, but I'd never done it before, and it was my
    starting
    > > position, so I thought I'd do it anyway.
    > >
    > > After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I made
    > not
    > > making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became active. It then
    > > erupted, and I was declared winner due to a conquests victory! I didn't
    > > know what on earth had happened. But then I looked at the timeline
    thing,
    > > showing the different events, and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but
    > > obviously due to a fault or something, I won! I got the highest rank on
    > the
    > > hammer fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And
    I've
    > > kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    > believe
    > > it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened to anyone
    > else?!
    > >
    > > But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get
    > anywhere
    > > at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers, making sure
    roads
    > > connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation until I get Monarchy
    or
    > > Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so I can trade, as soon as
    > > possible, but the problem is that one civ, or two, seems to get really
    > > advanced, and I can't keep up. They then nick all the best areas, and
    my
    > > cities which I place to get resources or luxuries end up flipping to
    those
    > > other civs. I end up having a small nation, only surviving as I keep
    > paying
    > > off the bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the
    game
    > I
    > > would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do well
    as
    > > the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really know what it
    is
    > I
    > > should do to keep up with the other civs. Should I build a huge army
    and
    > go
    > > on a military expedition and get power that way? I thought that
    wouldn't
    > be
    > > a good idea as the other civs always get a strong army at the start.
    But
    > > that is all I can think of that I could do.
    > >
    > > Any (more) hints and tips would be hugely appreciated! I don't really
    > want
    > > to know a way in which to guarantee victory and what not, just ways in
    > which
    > > I should improve my game, as I'm obviously doing something wrong.
    > > Obviously, because of the strange fault in the game, I have now won on
    > > Regent, but I want to do it properly too.
    > >
    > > Thank you in advance!
    > >
    > > Oh, I played Civ online the other day too! it works surprisingly well,
    > > although it did crash a couple of times, which is obviously not what you
    > > need. But in the end, it turns out that "play by email" is the way to
    > play,
    > > as then not only can you save your game, it is never going to crash, and
    > you
    > > can play when you want. It's really easy to do as well, as doesn't
    really
    > > take any more time. So if you are going to play online, I think that is
    > the
    > > best way to do it! Good fun! I think you guys should all arrange a
    game!
    > >
    > > Contro.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I'm a novice at Civ3...but some things I've learned hopefully not too off
    > the mark.
    > CivI and II, I eventually got to where I could win regularly. But I can't
    > get a good handle on Civ3. For the hours I've put into it, I'd think I'd
    be
    > expert by now...but I still play at warlord level for the very reasons you
    > outline here. I like a fighting chance...and this means to me the ability
    > to have a sizable civilization at the start. Even at warlord, the other
    > nations cut you off pretty quickly, building cities that block you pretty
    > early. So, one thing I do now is play in an Archeplego world. This
    usually
    > gives me time that I can build at least a competitive empire before
    > mapmaking allows other civs to land on my shores and start building to
    block
    > me off. 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the
    game.
    > I think the designers emphasized 'negotiations' with competitor civs as a
    > key to 'winning'. I've learned that you can get a sense of the 'research'
    > train that the other civs are taking [they tend to act along the same
    lines
    > too]. If you research 'trains' of discovery others aren't, then it makes
    > the tech advances you have more valuable in trade. Look into trading
    > immediatly after gaining a new tech advance too I think...and all in the
    > same turn. If you trade a tech to one civ, better bet it will be in the
    > hands of the other civs by the very next turn [negating your chance to
    > profit from trading it yourself]. Oh, here's something that's really
    helped
    > me; instead of 'offering or asking' trades on my own, I use the computer
    by
    > asking 'what would you give me for this or that...' or 'what would you
    want
    > for this or that...'. I found that I was miserably underselling things.
    >
    > Key tech advances that the games seems to hinge upon...Military Tradition
    > for building Cavalry unit and 'replaceable parts' for building Infantry.
    >
    > Powerful early units: Immortals for the Persians, Legionaries for the
    > Romans, and what I found 'best' are the Mounted Warriors for the Iriquois.
    > The Mounted Warriors are like early cavalry that can withdraw from battle
    if
    > they are losing...powerful in the early game [horsemen can do this but
    > aren't as powerful].
    >
    > I still haven't got a good handle on what Wonders are most advantageous.
    In
    > the last game Leonardo's workshop tilted the game decidedly in my favor.
    I
    > still go for the 'happy face' wonders...the ones that make more citizens
    > content or reverses unhappiness in some way; these allow me to be in
    > Republic or Democracy and still be able to carry on war if needed [or on
    > purpose]. I'd like to hear what others have to say on the Wonders...which
    > one's stand out for strategic benefit etc.
    >
    > I've won a space race and two games of conquest now...so perhaps I'll move
    > on to the next level, lol.
    > Has anyone here ever won a 'cultural victory'? Is there a vid clip after
    > that victory?
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    That is the best! When you can steamroll along with tanks and the other Civ
    is sending archers out to fight you. "Ha, ha you silly fools!", as you sit
    back in your throne of an office chair and mock their futile efforts.
    Although, I usually cannot get past a tinge of guilt because taking over
    cities or Civs like that is tooo close to Western Europe 1939 - Germany
    blitzkreiging Poland and Czechoslovakia. That's what it was, tanks
    fighting the equivalent of Riflement and Calvary.

    More on surviving in early stages...

    Vsyxx
    <Aqualung> wrote in message
    news:0f16408ad7516f449cae625b1c262e01@news.anonymous-usenet.com...
    > 'Winning' to me is not nearly as important as 'enjoying' the game."
    >
    > That's my philosophy in Civ III as well. Personally, I love to
    > micromanage my cities, so I've never used the City governor feature. I
    > love exploring early and finding goody huts, gaining strategic city
    > locations before my neighbors, making good trades, getting important
    > wonders like Pyramids and Leonardo's Work Shop built first, improving
    > the terrain for maximum city production and growth, etc. Nothing
    > pisses me off more than having made a good relation with a neighbor
    > (not the Germans, they're too predictable) and have them invade within
    > a few turns of a ROP. You get this more on Emperor and above which is
    > why I usually play Monarch even though I can beat the game on higher
    > levels. It's just more fun when we all can get along. Of course,
    > there's nothing better than a war with tanks against a neighbor with
    > pikemen and archers defending his cities. This is part of what I love
    > about CivIII.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    When I first played CivIII after a few years since playing CivII I was
    frustrated by the similar issues you have stated. Since then I have
    developed a few survival fundamentals that get me on a good footing to
    withstand sometimes capricious civ's.

    1. Disable the "Start with Culturally Linked Civ's" option. I find
    culturally linked Civs compete over the same things and leads to early
    hostilities.
    2. Start on a central location in the world and/or land mass. This allows
    much less corruption and dissent while settling cities. If not, "New Game".
    After all, you are the diety.
    3. If starting with competing Civs nearby, they are going to try and crowd
    you out so that your cities are disconnected which seriously weakens them.
    There are two techniques. i) establish cities so that they overlap their
    cultural boundaries early on. I find that if the cities are in a tight
    group it is very difficult for other Civs to impose on your territory. ii)
    Do unto others. Position new cities to cut off the other Civs, even if the
    terrain is not optimal. A subset of this, ii.a) if another Civ's city
    revolts and wants to switch over to you, consider its actual resource and
    strategic value, but generally don't refuse unless it is pitiful. About
    50/50, I usually take them in, strip away the military unit(s) and abandon
    the city. That'll teach those traitors!
    4. If you find yourself "islanded" (no competing Civs on your landmass),
    spread out your Civ to encompass the best of strategic resources and
    luxuries. Build roads as quick as possible to interconnect and attain
    resources and luxuries. The caveat is to also build up enough military
    units to both (italics here) escort all settlers and keep a firm hold on
    cities, and post a guard over workers (end italics).
    5. Horsemen are good early on for discovering land and keeping barbarians
    at bay.
    6. Irrigation early on to promote city growth and then emphasize mining to
    build up production. I like to give the new citizens a place to work as it
    were. Some may differ with this approach, but I've found the city grows
    faster and keeps them happier (full stomach).
    7. I follow the automatic suggestions of the science advisor through the
    first phase and start picking my technology tracks through the middle ages.
    Also, send out scouting units to acquire science advantages from villages.
    You'll see other Civs doing this.
    8. I always like having India in the game because they seem to be one of the
    more reasonable. America is good too.

    And finally, I like to play like Truman. Talk softly and carry a big stick.
    I've tried to be peaceful and put up with the bombastic French or Russians.
    But when the time is right for me - (another tip, don't get goaded or
    intimated early and listen to your forgein advisor) - then I unleash the
    hordes and make them pay for their insolence.

    vsyxx
    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > Hi guys!
    >
    > Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the talk of
    > Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing done. I have
    > improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still seem to get bullied by
    a
    > bigger nation, only surviving due to paying them money, but that's not
    what
    > I wanted to say LOL
    >
    > I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent difficulty
    > level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a volcano.
    Obviously
    > not a wise decision, but I'd never done it before, and it was my starting
    > position, so I thought I'd do it anyway.
    >
    > After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I made
    not
    > making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became active. It then
    > erupted, and I was declared winner due to a conquests victory! I didn't
    > know what on earth had happened. But then I looked at the timeline thing,
    > showing the different events, and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but
    > obviously due to a fault or something, I won! I got the highest rank on
    the
    > hammer fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
    > kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    believe
    > it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened to anyone
    else?!
    >
    > But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get
    anywhere
    > at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers, making sure roads
    > connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation until I get Monarchy or
    > Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so I can trade, as soon as
    > possible, but the problem is that one civ, or two, seems to get really
    > advanced, and I can't keep up. They then nick all the best areas, and my
    > cities which I place to get resources or luxuries end up flipping to those
    > other civs. I end up having a small nation, only surviving as I keep
    paying
    > off the bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game
    I
    > would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do well as
    > the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really know what it is
    I
    > should do to keep up with the other civs. Should I build a huge army and
    go
    > on a military expedition and get power that way? I thought that wouldn't
    be
    > a good idea as the other civs always get a strong army at the start. But
    > that is all I can think of that I could do.
    >
    > Any (more) hints and tips would be hugely appreciated! I don't really
    want
    > to know a way in which to guarantee victory and what not, just ways in
    which
    > I should improve my game, as I'm obviously doing something wrong.
    > Obviously, because of the strange fault in the game, I have now won on
    > Regent, but I want to do it properly too.
    >
    > Thank you in advance!
    >
    > Oh, I played Civ online the other day too! it works surprisingly well,
    > although it did crash a couple of times, which is obviously not what you
    > need. But in the end, it turns out that "play by email" is the way to
    play,
    > as then not only can you save your game, it is never going to crash, and
    you
    > can play when you want. It's really easy to do as well, as doesn't really
    > take any more time. So if you are going to play online, I think that is
    the
    > best way to do it! Good fun! I think you guys should all arrange a game!
    >
    > Contro.
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    The Stare wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>
    >> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >
    > Seriously?

    LOL yes, I'm afraid so! It could be that I use it without knowing what it
    is of course. But I think that might not be the case!
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:cbm6gk$gb2$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > The Stare wrote:
    > > "Contro"
    > > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > > wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > >>
    > >> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    > >
    > > Seriously?
    >
    > LOL yes, I'm afraid so! It could be that I use it without knowing what
    it
    > is of course. But I think that might not be the case!

    Right click the city and 'contact governor'.

    I just use it to manage citizen moods and NEVER let it decide what to build.

    You can tell if it is on by the outline around the city size next to the
    city name on the main map.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Aqualung wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:10:29 GMT, "The Stare"
    > <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >> wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>
    >>> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >>
    >> Seriously?
    >>
    >
    > Just in case he's never used it , it lets the city decide which units
    > or improvements to build each turn based on mood, production, food,
    > etc criteria. Right click on any city and it's in the section next to
    > draft citizen or in the city status screen, it's the head icon next to
    > your production shields.

    no, I don't think I've ever used this before. Is it worth using? I get the
    impression that you guys prefer to use your own judgement rather than
    letting the computer decide anything....

    So right click on a city, and it's in the menu is it?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:16:33 -0400, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >> wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>> Hi guys!
    >>>
    >>> Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the
    >>> talk of Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing
    >>> done. I have improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still
    >>> seem to get bullied by a bigger nation, only surviving due to
    >>> paying them money, but that's not what I wanted to say LOL
    >>>
    >>> I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent
    >>> difficulty level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a
    >>> volcano. Obviously not a wise decision, but I'd never done it
    >>> before, and it was my starting position, so I thought I'd do it
    >>> anyway.
    >>>
    >>> After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I
    >>> made not making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became
    >>> active. It then erupted, and I was declared winner due to a
    >>> conquests victory! I didn't know what on earth had happened. But
    >>> then I looked at the timeline thing, showing the different events,
    >>> and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but obviously due to a fault
    >>> or something, I won! I got the highest rank on the hammer
    >>> fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
    >>> kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    >>> believe it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened
    >>> to anyone else?!
    >
    > I've never won by such an accident, but I've lost due to being wiped
    > out by barbarians and such. It gives the AI a big victory!

    I've not had that happen to me, but I can see it being something you don't
    compensate for, as you would never expect it!

    Maybe
    > when the volcano does it, it counts like a win for you because it
    > happens on your turn or something like that?
    >

    It's very crazy, whatever it is! But yes, perhaps that is it, as that does
    make a kind of sense. Just odd the way it's my city being destroyed that
    triggers it!
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Ambarish Sridharanarayanan wrote:
    > In article <cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
    >
    >> But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get
    >> anywhere at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers,
    >> making sure roads connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation
    >> until I get Monarchy or Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so
    >> I can trade, as soon as possible, but the problem is that one civ,
    >> or two, seems to get really advanced, and I can't keep up. They
    >> then nick all the best areas, and my cities which I place to get
    >> resources or luxuries end up flipping to those other civs. I end up
    >> having a small nation, only surviving as I keep paying off the
    >> bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game I
    >> would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do
    >> well as the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really
    >> know what it is I should do to keep up with the other civs. Should
    >> I build a huge army and go on a military expedition and get power
    >> that way? I thought that wouldn't be a good idea as the other civs
    >> always get a strong army at the start. But that is all I can think
    >> of that I could do.
    >
    > Well, can you send a link to a save-file? Perhaps some of us could
    > take a look and suggest possibilities that may not have occured to
    > you.

    Typically, my web space is messing up (freeserve changing to another company
    has caused trouble it seems). But I'll keep checking. I could email you
    the save file if you like...

    Thank you for the offer!
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Thanks for all that help!

    I think the main thing I don't do is build cities close to each other, and
    use them to block other civs off. The thing is though, is that I'm not sure
    I would build settlers fast enough to block any civs. Perhaps it helps a
    lot having civs a lot closer in order to make settlers faster.

    I also wasn't sure about irrigation before Monarchy or Republic, due to not
    getting any benefits before then....some guys on here advised not to bother
    with irrigation until just about near a government change. But I think that
    won't make too much different to my progress, as long as I get the
    irrigation in time, or do it early, like you say.

    But yes, I've made sure I send out at least two scouts now, to get those
    villages to give me techs or what not, and to also meet with other civs as
    soon as I can to trade early techs with them. But I always liked turning on
    culturally linked civs, so that I had neighbours that were realistic. But
    do you really think it's a bad idea to have that on?

    Well, I'm going to keep trying at the game, as it's so good, and I'm
    determined to master it! Might take me forever, but I'm going to do it!

    Thanks again!

    Vsyxx wrote:
    > When I first played CivIII after a few years since playing CivII I was
    > frustrated by the similar issues you have stated. Since then I have
    > developed a few survival fundamentals that get me on a good footing to
    > withstand sometimes capricious civ's.
    >
    > 1. Disable the "Start with Culturally Linked Civ's" option. I find
    > culturally linked Civs compete over the same things and leads to early
    > hostilities.
    > 2. Start on a central location in the world and/or land mass. This
    > allows much less corruption and dissent while settling cities. If
    > not, "New Game". After all, you are the diety.
    > 3. If starting with competing Civs nearby, they are going to try and
    > crowd you out so that your cities are disconnected which seriously
    > weakens them. There are two techniques. i) establish cities so that
    > they overlap their cultural boundaries early on. I find that if the
    > cities are in a tight group it is very difficult for other Civs to
    > impose on your territory. ii) Do unto others. Position new cities
    > to cut off the other Civs, even if the terrain is not optimal. A
    > subset of this, ii.a) if another Civ's city revolts and wants to
    > switch over to you, consider its actual resource and strategic value,
    > but generally don't refuse unless it is pitiful. About 50/50, I
    > usually take them in, strip away the military unit(s) and abandon the
    > city. That'll teach those traitors!
    > 4. If you find yourself "islanded" (no competing Civs on your
    > landmass), spread out your Civ to encompass the best of strategic
    > resources and luxuries. Build roads as quick as possible to
    > interconnect and attain resources and luxuries. The caveat is to
    > also build up enough military units to both (italics here) escort all
    > settlers and keep a firm hold on cities, and post a guard over
    > workers (end italics).
    > 5. Horsemen are good early on for discovering land and keeping
    > barbarians at bay.
    > 6. Irrigation early on to promote city growth and then emphasize
    > mining to build up production. I like to give the new citizens a
    > place to work as it were. Some may differ with this approach, but
    > I've found the city grows faster and keeps them happier (full
    > stomach).
    > 7. I follow the automatic suggestions of the science advisor through
    > the first phase and start picking my technology tracks through the
    > middle ages. Also, send out scouting units to acquire science
    > advantages from villages. You'll see other Civs doing this.
    > 8. I always like having India in the game because they seem to be one
    > of the more reasonable. America is good too.
    >
    > And finally, I like to play like Truman. Talk softly and carry a big
    > stick. I've tried to be peaceful and put up with the bombastic French
    > or Russians. But when the time is right for me - (another tip, don't
    > get goaded or intimated early and listen to your forgein advisor) -
    > then I unleash the hordes and make them pay for their insolence.
    >
    > vsyxx
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:cb4elr$h3j$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> Hi guys!
    >>
    >> Sorry I've been so quiet recently. I thought, what with all the
    >> talk of Civ, but not much playing, I'd actually get some playing
    >> done. I have improved a bit, with all the advice, but I do still
    >> seem to get bullied by a bigger nation, only surviving due to paying
    >> them money, but that's not what I wanted to say LOL
    >>
    >> I had the most bizarre game just now. I was Rome, on Regent
    >> difficulty level, and when I started, I built my capital next to a
    >> volcano. Obviously not a wise decision, but I'd never done it
    >> before, and it was my starting position, so I thought I'd do it
    >> anyway.
    >>
    >> After about 32 turns, I still hadn't made another city (an error I
    >> made not making a settler sooner), and then the volcano became
    >> active. It then erupted, and I was declared winner due to a
    >> conquests victory! I didn't know what on earth had happened. But
    >> then I looked at the timeline thing, showing the different events,
    >> and Rome was destroyed by the volcano, but obviously due to a fault
    >> or something, I won! I got the highest rank on the hammer
    >> fairground thing at the end, and a score of over 13,000! And I've
    >> kept all the screenshots if no one believes me! I certainly didn't
    >> believe it at first! Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Has this happened
    >> to anyone else?!
    >>
    >> But anyway, back to my normal game. Well, I just don't seem to get
    >> anywhere at the start really. I have tried doing manual workers,
    >> making sure roads connect all cities, not bothering with irrigation
    >> until I get Monarchy or Republic, and make sure I find my rivals, so
    >> I can trade, as soon as possible, but the problem is that one civ,
    >> or two, seems to get really advanced, and I can't keep up. They
    >> then nick all the best areas, and my cities which I place to get
    >> resources or luxuries end up flipping to those other civs. I end up
    >> having a small nation, only surviving as I keep paying off the
    >> bigger civs to leave me alone. I think during the end of the game I
    >> would catch up, but I don't want that, as I want to be able to do
    >> well as the start, as I know it is possible. I just don't really
    >> know what it is I should do to keep up with the other civs. Should
    >> I build a huge army and go on a military expedition and get power
    >> that way? I thought that wouldn't be a good idea as the other civs
    >> always get a strong army at the start. But that is all I can think
    >> of that I could do.
    >>
    >> Any (more) hints and tips would be hugely appreciated! I don't
    >> really want to know a way in which to guarantee victory and what
    >> not, just ways in which I should improve my game, as I'm obviously
    >> doing something wrong. Obviously, because of the strange fault in
    >> the game, I have now won on Regent, but I want to do it properly too.
    >>
    >> Thank you in advance!
    >>
    >> Oh, I played Civ online the other day too! it works surprisingly
    >> well, although it did crash a couple of times, which is obviously
    >> not what you need. But in the end, it turns out that "play by
    >> email" is the way to play, as then not only can you save your game,
    >> it is never going to crash, and you can play when you want. It's
    >> really easy to do as well, as doesn't really take any more time. So
    >> if you are going to play online, I think that is the best way to do
    >> it! Good fun! I think you guys should all arrange a game!
    >>
    >> Contro.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    The Stare wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:cbm6gk$gb2$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> The Stare wrote:
    >>> "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>> wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>>
    >>>> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >>>
    >>> Seriously?
    >>
    >> LOL yes, I'm afraid so! It could be that I use it without knowing
    >> what it is of course. But I think that might not be the case!
    >
    > Right click the city and 'contact governor'.
    >
    > I just use it to manage citizen moods and NEVER let it decide what to
    > build.
    >
    > You can tell if it is on by the outline around the city size next to
    > the city name on the main map.

    This will be a big help, as there is nothing worse than getting civil
    disorder all the time! Thanks! But yes, I always decide what to build
    myself, even if it is the wrong decisions LOL
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote in message news:cbmfee$ack$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > The Stare wrote:
    > > "Contro"
    > > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > > wrote in message news:cbm6gk$gb2$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > >> The Stare wrote:
    > >>> "Contro"
    > >>>
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > >>> wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > >>>>
    > >>>> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    > >>>
    > >>> Seriously?
    > >>
    > >> LOL yes, I'm afraid so! It could be that I use it without knowing
    > >> what it is of course. But I think that might not be the case!
    > >
    > > Right click the city and 'contact governor'.
    > >
    > > I just use it to manage citizen moods and NEVER let it decide what to
    > > build.
    > >
    > > You can tell if it is on by the outline around the city size next to
    > > the city name on the main map.
    >
    > This will be a big help, as there is nothing worse than getting civil
    > disorder all the time! Thanks! But yes, I always decide what to build
    > myself, even if it is the wrong decisions LOL

    In the city view, one of the buttons next to the production box is for the
    govenor, assuming PTW or later. Otherwise, i think just pressing 'g' while
    the city view is open will contact it.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
    om> wrote in news:cbm6j3$sa7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:

    > Aqualung wrote:
    >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:10:29 GMT, "The Stare"
    >> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.k
    >>> ingdom> wrote in message
    >>> news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>>
    >>>> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >>>
    >>> Seriously?
    >>>
    >>
    >> Just in case he's never used it , it lets the city decide which
    >> units or improvements to build each turn based on mood,
    >> production, food, etc criteria. Right click on any city and it's
    >> in the section next to draft citizen or in the city status
    >> screen, it's the head icon next to your production shields.
    >
    > no, I don't think I've ever used this before. Is it worth using?
    > I get the impression that you guys prefer to use your own
    > judgement rather than letting the computer decide anything....
    >
    > So right click on a city, and it's in the menu is it?

    Yes, or "g" from the city screen. I only use the governor to watch
    citizen moods. It is good at that.

    --
    ICQ: 8105495
    AIM: KeeperGFA
    EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    "If we did the things we are capable of,
    we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
    > om> wrote in news:cbm6j3$sa7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
    >
    >> Aqualung wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:10:29 GMT, "The Stare"
    >>> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Contro"
    >>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.k
    >>>> ingdom> wrote in message
    >>>> news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >>>>
    >>>> Seriously?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Just in case he's never used it , it lets the city decide which
    >>> units or improvements to build each turn based on mood,
    >>> production, food, etc criteria. Right click on any city and it's
    >>> in the section next to draft citizen or in the city status
    >>> screen, it's the head icon next to your production shields.
    >>
    >> no, I don't think I've ever used this before. Is it worth using?
    >> I get the impression that you guys prefer to use your own
    >> judgement rather than letting the computer decide anything....
    >>
    >> So right click on a city, and it's in the menu is it?
    >
    > Yes, or "g" from the city screen. I only use the governor to watch
    > citizen moods. It is good at that.

    Thanks! I'll be sure to use this in future!
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    The Stare wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote in message news:cbmfee$ack$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> The Stare wrote:
    >>> "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>> wrote in message news:cbm6gk$gb2$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>> The Stare wrote:
    >>>>> "Contro"
    >>>>>
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>>> wrote in message news:cba84t$ocn$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> City Governor Feature?! What is that?!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Seriously?
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL yes, I'm afraid so! It could be that I use it without knowing
    >>>> what it is of course. But I think that might not be the case!
    >>>
    >>> Right click the city and 'contact governor'.
    >>>
    >>> I just use it to manage citizen moods and NEVER let it decide what
    >>> to build.
    >>>
    >>> You can tell if it is on by the outline around the city size next to
    >>> the city name on the main map.
    >>
    >> This will be a big help, as there is nothing worse than getting civil
    >> disorder all the time! Thanks! But yes, I always decide what to
    >> build myself, even if it is the wrong decisions LOL
    >
    > In the city view, one of the buttons next to the production box is
    > for the govenor, assuming PTW or later. Otherwise, i think just
    > pressing 'g' while the city view is open will contact it.]

    Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping people happy a
    lot easier!
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:25:47 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >Here is part of my problem. I just can't get those wonders built first
    >(early on anyway), as I'm just too far behind. I just don't understand why
    >I get so far behind. I'm on Regent difficulty, so it's not like it's a
    >really really hard level.

    Regent is a pretty hard level. Most civ players hang out around
    Regent or Monarch levels. Beyond that it isn't really fun anymore.
    It is like fighing a guy with a butcher knife when all you got is a
    sewing needle. Yeah you can possibly poke him in the eye but I
    prefer a good old fashion fist fight.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:33:20 GMT, "The Stare"
    <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

    >Right click the city and 'contact governor'.
    >
    >I just use it to manage citizen moods and NEVER let it decide what to build.
    >
    >You can tell if it is on by the outline around the city size next to the
    >city name on the main map.

    Actually there is an menu option can choose not have it ask after
    building a unit. If you got every city cranking out offensive destroy
    units it is easier to manage the production through the main screen.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:12:51 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >no, I don't think I've ever used this before. Is it worth using? I get the
    >impression that you guys prefer to use your own judgement rather than
    >letting the computer decide anything....
    >
    >So right click on a city, and it's in the menu is it?

    I use the governors all the time. But am also manually manage my
    workers when many people use the automation. To me it seems like the
    city kicks and does what it feels like every turn even after I turn a
    governor off. With the governor I can quickly adjust all cities to my
    criteria. This is important after switching governments because all
    the cities switch to food squares.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:07:39 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping people happy a
    >lot easier!

    You still got a watch your happiness percentage. If you fall below
    60% it is possible to flip into anarchy. And you can still get civil
    unrest. But it makes it much easier to manage stuff.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    P12 wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:07:39 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping people
    >> happy a lot easier!
    >
    > You still got a watch your happiness percentage. If you fall below
    > 60% it is possible to flip into anarchy. And you can still get civil
    > unrest. But it makes it much easier to manage stuff.

    Won't the city governor handle all this for me though? I thought the point
    of it was to stop, if it can, any city falling into disorder or starvation?
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
    om> wrote in news:cbv6bc$9ue$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:

    > P12 wrote:
    >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:07:39 +0100, "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.ki
    >> ngdom> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping
    >>> people happy a lot easier!
    >>
    >> You still got a watch your happiness percentage. If you fall
    >> below 60% it is possible to flip into anarchy. And you can still
    >> get civil unrest. But it makes it much easier to manage stuff.
    >
    > Won't the city governor handle all this for me though? I thought
    > the point of it was to stop, if it can, any city falling into
    > disorder or starvation?

    The governor is good at keeping people content. In my experience it
    only fails to factor war weariness. This is probably just a minor
    oversight on the programmers' part. Probably something like : most
    unhappiness is calculated first, then the city governor tries to make
    the city content, then war weariness is calculated.
    As for food, I think the governor tries to keep 2 extra food coming
    in for growth until the city is maxed in pop. You can alter this
    behaviour with the focus on food/shield/commerce options.
    Another impressive thing I've seen the governor do; is when you buy
    an improvement or unit, the governor will shift all the workers to
    food/commerce tiles since it doesn't need any more shields for the next
    turn.

    --
    ICQ: 8105495
    AIM: KeeperGFA
    EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    "If we did the things we are capable of,
    we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:03:56 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >P12 wrote:
    >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:07:39 +0100, "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping people
    >>> happy a lot easier!
    >>
    >> You still got a watch your happiness percentage. If you fall below
    >> 60% it is possible to flip into anarchy. And you can still get civil
    >> unrest. But it makes it much easier to manage stuff.
    >
    >Won't the city governor handle all this for me though? I thought the point
    >of it was to stop, if it can, any city falling into disorder or starvation?

    The governor has problems when there is no simple, safe solution to
    the disorder. If the city can't feed everyone, the governor can't fix
    the disorder -- it can't let people starve either. Also, when war
    weariness is hitting hard, it might be hard to keep the citizens
    happy.

    Of course, the key to the latter is to switch governments before
    your Democracy collapses, watch the trend and either make peace or
    change governments first.

    For the food thing, there is a preferences setting to pop up a
    message when disorder kicks in, letting you fix it. It is a good
    backup for the governor, in case the situation is not resolveable
    (without starving people anyway).


    I tend to use the city governor to manage happiness and production,
    *unless* I need something specific which it can't do. First case -- I
    need *one* scientist because I'm running zero science, getting the
    tech in maximum time. The governor won't let you create just one
    scientist and leave it there while at 0% science, so you must turn off
    the governor.

    Second case is the all-out production center -- I either zero growth
    or make it negative while maximizing shields. This is mostly to get a
    wonder fast as possible, especially before cities can grow above size
    12. Even if you starve the city, you can toss in workers to keep the
    population up, reseting production each time. If you have enough
    stored food, you can run with a shortage for quite a while.


    Otherwise, the governor is much better than micromanaging each city.
    One more thing -- the governor will automatically put people back on
    polluted squares, after cleaning, which won't happen automatically
    otherwise.

    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    P12 wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:33:20 GMT, "The Stare"
    > <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Right click the city and 'contact governor'.
    >>
    >> I just use it to manage citizen moods and NEVER let it decide what
    >> to build.
    >>
    >> You can tell if it is on by the outline around the city size next to
    >> the city name on the main map.
    >
    > Actually there is an menu option can choose not have it ask after
    > building a unit. If you got every city cranking out offensive destroy
    > units it is easier to manage the production through the main screen.

    I think I've got it switched so that it always asks me. else, I always find
    that the computer keeps building units I don't want without me realising
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    P12 wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:25:47 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Here is part of my problem. I just can't get those wonders built
    >> first (early on anyway), as I'm just too far behind. I just don't
    >> understand why I get so far behind. I'm on Regent difficulty, so
    >> it's not like it's a really really hard level.
    >
    > Regent is a pretty hard level. Most civ players hang out around
    > Regent or Monarch levels. Beyond that it isn't really fun anymore.
    > It is like fighing a guy with a butcher knife when all you got is a
    > sewing needle. Yeah you can possibly poke him in the eye but I
    > prefer a good old fashion fist fight.

    Good to hear I'm almost on a "hard" level, and getting good at the game!
    But yes, I agree with you totally, as, while I like a challenge, if it's too
    hard for it to be fun (you can't win with using any freedom, as you have to
    do a certain set of tactics), then it's just not for me. But I aim to win
    on Monarch! i don't know if I'll go further than that. Not until I've
    mastered Monarch anyway.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:25:57 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >Thanks for all that help!
    >
    >I think the main thing I don't do is build cities close to each other, and
    >use them to block other civs off. The thing is though, is that I'm not sure
    >I would build settlers fast enough to block any civs. Perhaps it helps a
    >lot having civs a lot closer in order to make settlers faster.

    Build the cities close together and you shorten the time to build
    more, and you also reduce corruption and waste. Whether this is
    better in the long run is harder to judge, as the AI does *not* do
    this and still turns out lots of settlers.

    However, the AI seems to have a suicidal passion for churning out
    settlers -- it is like the first thing they do is build one. Else
    maybe they do warriors and scouts, but *nothing* else early on. At
    levels above Regent, this gets even worse with the AI production edge
    and starting units -- especially starting units!

    You can try to match this, whether or not you build cities which
    overlap. I don't know how safe this is with lots of barbarians, I
    suspect that the AI just lets them raid the cities rather than
    fighting them off.

    >I also wasn't sure about irrigation before Monarchy or Republic, due to not
    >getting any benefits before then....some guys on here advised not to bother
    >with irrigation until just about near a government change. But I think that
    >won't make too much different to my progress, as long as I get the
    >irrigation in time, or do it early, like you say.

    Irrigation specifically has no benefit when done on a square which
    already produces two food (most grasslands), while in Despotism. So
    doing it there offers no advantage at all.

    Still, early on you tend to have more than enough food in most
    cities to make them grow. So unless the city is going to churn out
    workers/settlers, don't bother irrigating early.

    In the long run, though, it doesn't hurt, especially if you have
    limited water sources and must make a chain of irrigation in order to
    feed all your cities. In the last case, irrigation is an essential
    long term plan -- I had my capital once in a landlocked plains with no
    rivers, making the chain of irrigation to it essential in order to get
    above size six with my core cities.

    >But yes, I've made sure I send out at least two scouts now, to get those
    >villages to give me techs or what not, and to also meet with other civs as
    >soon as I can to trade early techs with them. But I always liked turning on
    >culturally linked civs, so that I had neighbours that were realistic. But
    >do you really think it's a bad idea to have that on?

    Expansionist civs can safely use their scout units to explore, and
    because of that they should do so aggressively (barbarians will never
    pop out of huts to attack them). Others still should, but have to
    take into account the risk of triggering barbarians. One more thing
    is that Expansionist is much more likely to get a settler from a hut,
    and getting those early can speed up development massively. Plus
    having all the Ancient Tech from huts means that you can skip
    research, and make lots by trading techs away.

    I don't think that culturally linked civs are bad, just predictable.
    If the civ you want to play is likely to fight with one of its
    neighbors, you know their style and units well -- a plus if you can
    handle them, a minus if you cannot. Also, if you know that some are
    highly aggressive, you can anticipate an early war.

    Without that, they are entirely random, which means you have to cope
    with a wider range of opponents, some whose styles might be at a
    disadvantage compared to yours.

    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:47:58 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >> They took the air balloons out of DyP because of that. Not the only
    >> unit which didn't make the cut due to AI mismanagement (sigh) -- but
    >> most people play single player, so it is rather hard to make a mod
    >> which has lots of cool human-only stuff.
    >
    >I dread to think how long the turn took when all those baloons attacked!
    >Shame the AI messed up the idea. Were the baloons a pretty good addition
    >otherwise?

    I would have to take a nap and wait for all the balloons to finish.
    I didn't really understand their fascination with the balloons. They
    only had an bombardment of 1 so it would take many to do any damage.
    DYP is full of great units so you have your choice of what to build.
    I preferred the Belgium Raiders. I watched the vikings wipe out
    nearly an entire continent with those things. They would have wiped
    everyone out if I hadn't of stopped them.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
    > "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
    > om> wrote in news:cbv6bc$9ue$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
    >
    >> P12 wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:07:39 +0100, "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.ki
    >>> ngdom> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping
    >>>> people happy a lot easier!
    >>>
    >>> You still got a watch your happiness percentage. If you fall
    >>> below 60% it is possible to flip into anarchy. And you can still
    >>> get civil unrest. But it makes it much easier to manage stuff.
    >>
    >> Won't the city governor handle all this for me though? I thought
    >> the point of it was to stop, if it can, any city falling into
    >> disorder or starvation?
    >
    > The governor is good at keeping people content. In my experience
    > it only fails to factor war weariness. This is probably just a minor
    > oversight on the programmers' part. Probably something like : most
    > unhappiness is calculated first, then the city governor tries to make
    > the city content, then war weariness is calculated.
    > As for food, I think the governor tries to keep 2 extra food coming
    > in for growth until the city is maxed in pop. You can alter this
    > behaviour with the focus on food/shield/commerce options.
    > Another impressive thing I've seen the governor do; is when you buy
    > an improvement or unit, the governor will shift all the workers to
    > food/commerce tiles since it doesn't need any more shields for the
    > next turn.

    It does sound pretty comprehensive! Just a shame about the war weariness
    really. Has this not been solved in any of the patches? You'd have thought
    it would have been!

    Is it a bad idea to have the 2 extra food coming in that you mention? If
    so, why is that?

    I'm yet to check out the governor part yet, as I keep forgetting! But I'll
    check next time I'm civing it up! Thanks!
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:38:21 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >It does sound pretty comprehensive! Just a shame about the war weariness
    >really. Has this not been solved in any of the patches? You'd have thought
    >it would have been!

    The governor will try its best to compensate. But if the people get
    really unhappy they can't produce enough happiness and food at the
    same time. Remember to make an entertainer you have to pull someone
    off a production square.

    I had one game where I was in a very long war and my civ went into
    anarchy. They cheered the next turn when I went into anarchy. I
    picked communism and continued my domination.

    >Is it a bad idea to have the 2 extra food coming in that you mention? If
    >so, why is that?

    I like to have my cities peek and population and then have zero
    growth. If your city can't old any more population then any new
    people die out. Also if you don't have enough happiness improvements
    you may not wan more people. Otherwise 2 extra food will just make
    your city grow and be more productive.

    >I'm yet to check out the governor part yet, as I keep forgetting! But I'll
    >check next time I'm civing it up! Thanks!

    Someone here suggested that if you double click the city in the city
    view the squares will arrange in the same fashion as the governor
    would have done.

    Oh yeah one other bad part of the governors. They are difficult to
    deal with when cities over lap. They don't work well at picking out
    the best squares so both cites can flourish.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:03:56 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> P12 wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:07:39 +0100, "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Grand! This will be a huge help, and certainly make keeping people
    >>>> happy a lot easier!
    >>>
    >>> You still got a watch your happiness percentage. If you fall below
    >>> 60% it is possible to flip into anarchy. And you can still get
    >>> civil unrest. But it makes it much easier to manage stuff.
    >>
    >> Won't the city governor handle all this for me though? I thought
    >> the point of it was to stop, if it can, any city falling into
    >> disorder or starvation?
    >
    > The governor has problems when there is no simple, safe solution to
    > the disorder. If the city can't feed everyone, the governor can't fix
    > the disorder -- it can't let people starve either. Also, when war
    > weariness is hitting hard, it might be hard to keep the citizens
    > happy.

    So what happens when this happens? Do you have to watch out for it, or does
    something specific happen, allowing you to take charge of things? I'm
    guessing you'll just have to keep an eye out, but thougth I'd ask anyway!

    >
    > Of course, the key to the latter is to switch governments before
    > your Democracy collapses, watch the trend and either make peace or
    > change governments first.
    >

    I always like it when someone declares war on you, just when you were
    thinking about how a war with that person would be advantageous!

    > For the food thing, there is a preferences setting to pop up a
    > message when disorder kicks in, letting you fix it. It is a good
    > backup for the governor, in case the situation is not resolveable
    > (without starving people anyway).
    >

    That is certainly handy!

    >
    > I tend to use the city governor to manage happiness and production,
    > *unless* I need something specific which it can't do. First case -- I
    > need *one* scientist because I'm running zero science, getting the
    > tech in maximum time. The governor won't let you create just one
    > scientist and leave it there while at 0% science, so you must turn off
    > the governor.
    >
    > Second case is the all-out production center -- I either zero growth
    > or make it negative while maximizing shields. This is mostly to get a
    > wonder fast as possible, especially before cities can grow above size
    > 12. Even if you starve the city, you can toss in workers to keep the
    > population up, reseting production each time. If you have enough
    > stored food, you can run with a shortage for quite a while.
    >
    >
    > Otherwise, the governor is much better than micromanaging each city.
    > One more thing -- the governor will automatically put people back on
    > polluted squares, after cleaning, which won't happen automatically
    > otherwise.


    Thanks for all that! Sounds like there are even more complex things for me
    to get the hang of! But well, at least I'm aware of all this now, unlike
    before. And it is certainly good to hear that the governor puts people back
    onto those polluted squares! I didn't know that they weren't put on
    automatically anyway, so I'll definitely be making good use of the governor
    from now on!
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:44:59 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >> The governor has problems when there is no simple, safe solution to
    >> the disorder. If the city can't feed everyone, the governor can't fix
    >> the disorder -- it can't let people starve either. Also, when war
    >> weariness is hitting hard, it might be hard to keep the citizens
    >> happy.
    >
    >So what happens when this happens? Do you have to watch out for it, or does
    >something specific happen, allowing you to take charge of things? I'm
    >guessing you'll just have to keep an eye out, but thougth I'd ask anyway!

    You worse cities will start going into civil disorder. When you
    click on other cities you will notice many of the citizens are
    entertainers trying to compensate. When you click on an unhappy
    citizen you can find out what is pissing them off.

    I normally just watch my overall unhappiness percentage. The lower
    the number the higher risk of my people rebelling agains't me.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    P12 wrote:
    > On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:38:21 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> It does sound pretty comprehensive! Just a shame about the war
    >> weariness really. Has this not been solved in any of the patches?
    >> You'd have thought it would have been!
    >
    > The governor will try its best to compensate. But if the people get
    > really unhappy they can't produce enough happiness and food at the
    > same time. Remember to make an entertainer you have to pull someone
    > off a production square.
    >
    > I had one game where I was in a very long war and my civ went into
    > anarchy. They cheered the next turn when I went into anarchy. I
    > picked communism and continued my domination.
    >

    glad you managed to sort it out! But yes, I'll be sure to be careful!
    Thanks!

    >> Is it a bad idea to have the 2 extra food coming in that you
    >> mention? If so, why is that?
    >
    > I like to have my cities peek and population and then have zero
    > growth. If your city can't old any more population then any new
    > people die out. Also if you don't have enough happiness improvements
    > you may not wan more people. Otherwise 2 extra food will just make
    > your city grow and be more productive.

    ahh, I see. So no point with having the 2 extra after you max out
    population-wise? But what adantage would not having that 2 extra food give,
    once you have maxed your population? Just that you can put your people to
    other use?

    >
    >> I'm yet to check out the governor part yet, as I keep forgetting!
    >> But I'll check next time I'm civing it up! Thanks!
    >
    > Someone here suggested that if you double click the city in the city
    > view the squares will arrange in the same fashion as the governor
    > would have done.
    >

    ahh, yes, that's the tactic I use. I found that by accident as it happens
    LOL

    > Oh yeah one other bad part of the governors. They are difficult to
    > deal with when cities over lap. They don't work well at picking out
    > the best squares so both cites can flourish.

    ahh, I see. Okay, I'll watch out for that too! Thank you!
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    P12 wrote:
    > On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:47:58 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> They took the air balloons out of DyP because of that. Not the
    >>> only unit which didn't make the cut due to AI mismanagement (sigh)
    >>> -- but most people play single player, so it is rather hard to make
    >>> a mod which has lots of cool human-only stuff.
    >>
    >> I dread to think how long the turn took when all those baloons
    >> attacked! Shame the AI messed up the idea. Were the baloons a
    >> pretty good addition otherwise?
    >
    > I would have to take a nap and wait for all the balloons to finish.
    > I didn't really understand their fascination with the balloons. They
    > only had an bombardment of 1 so it would take many to do any damage.
    > DYP is full of great units so you have your choice of what to build.
    > I preferred the Belgium Raiders. I watched the vikings wipe out
    > nearly an entire continent with those things. They would have wiped
    > everyone out if I hadn't of stopped them.

    LOL sounds like good fun! Is DyP rreally as good as people say? I get the
    impression that a lot of you guys prefer it to the normal civ game!
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:36:56 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >> I would have to take a nap and wait for all the balloons to finish.
    >> I didn't really understand their fascination with the balloons. They
    >> only had an bombardment of 1 so it would take many to do any damage.
    >> DYP is full of great units so you have your choice of what to build.
    >> I preferred the Belgium Raiders. I watched the vikings wipe out
    >> nearly an entire continent with those things. They would have wiped
    >> everyone out if I hadn't of stopped them.
    >
    >LOL sounds like good fun! Is DyP rreally as good as people say? I get the
    >impression that a lot of you guys prefer it to the normal civ game!

    When you are bored with the regular game it is a good play. It always
    takes me a really long time to finish because so much is going on. I
    haven't played it since Conquests came out because I have been playing
    those instead.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:17:33 +0100, "Contro"
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    wrote:

    >Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:38:30 +0100, "Contro"
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:47:58 +0100, "Contro"
    >>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:04:42 +0100, "Contro"
    >>>>>>
    ><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> P12 wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:43:57 +0100, "Contro"
    >>>>>>>>
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:

    >>>>>> Unless you target multiplayer-only, but that is a different sort
    >>>>>> of goal. Then you could ignore the AI handling problems -- except
    >>>>>> that most multiplayer games still have AI computers in as
    >>>>>> opponents.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm currently playing a multiplayer game, although it's going slow.
    >>>>> it's play by email, so we can play as and when we like, and save it
    >>>>> too, which is always good. Actually a lot of fun, although not
    >>>>> really got very far yet. But I do recommend it!
    >>>>
    >>>> It can be fun, but it is hard to build a rule set which caters to
    >>>> that and not to the AI.
    >>>
    >>> why, what problems have you found with it?
    >>
    >> In DyP, there was a cool Merchant/Caravan unit. The AI didn't grasp
    >> the purpose -- you could use them to prebuild a wonder or whatever.
    >> The cost was more than any wonder at their tech level, and they could
    >> be used -- like a leader -- to rush anything.
    >>
    >> A lot of other specialized units are easy for humans to use, but
    >> hard for the AI. Putting them into the game messes up the AI play,
    >> and thus they can't be used -- except in an all-human game.
    >
    >ahh, I see, that is a shame, as I'm sure they are great ideas! Do you play
    >much against other human players in it, or do you stick to the AI anyway?

    Mostly single player, but in multiplayer we usually have AI players
    in the game too -- so the AI limitations can be frustrating there.

    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:17:33 +0100, "Contro"
    > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:38:30 +0100, "Contro"
    >>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:47:58 +0100, "Contro"
    >>>>>
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:04:42 +0100, "Contro"
    >>>>>>>
    >> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> P12 wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:43:57 +0100, "Contro"
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>
    <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
    >>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> Unless you target multiplayer-only, but that is a different
    >>>>>>> sort of goal. Then you could ignore the AI handling problems
    >>>>>>> -- except that most multiplayer games still have AI computers
    >>>>>>> in as opponents.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm currently playing a multiplayer game, although it's going
    >>>>>> slow. it's play by email, so we can play as and when we like,
    >>>>>> and save it too, which is always good. Actually a lot of fun,
    >>>>>> although not really got very far yet. But I do recommend it!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It can be fun, but it is hard to build a rule set which caters
    >>>>> to that and not to the AI.
    >>>>
    >>>> why, what problems have you found with it?
    >>>
    >>> In DyP, there was a cool Merchant/Caravan unit. The AI didn't
    >>> grasp the purpose -- you could use them to prebuild a wonder or
    >>> whatever. The cost was more than any wonder at their tech level,
    >>> and they could be used -- like a leader -- to rush anything.
    >>>
    >>> A lot of other specialized units are easy for humans to use, but
    >>> hard for the AI. Putting them into the game messes up the AI play,
    >>> and thus they can't be used -- except in an all-human game.
    >>
    >> ahh, I see, that is a shame, as I'm sure they are great ideas! Do
    >> you play much against other human players in it, or do you stick to
    >> the AI anyway?
    >
    > Mostly single player, but in multiplayer we usually have AI players
    > in the game too -- so the AI limitations can be frustrating there.

    Yes, true, as while you might play with more than 1 human player, without
    having the full compliment, the game will still have it's problems in
    regards to that, which is a shame. But well, perhaps one day they'll sort
    it out. As an unofficial mod though, it sounds like they've done a great
    job in making it!
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games