Anoying Civ3

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

I have been playing Civ since it came out, and I took some time to get
used to Civ3, but after

extensive playing - even getting a personal best - this does not hide
the fact that there are some extremely annoying things about the game.

Here are a few items on my wishlist.

Speed. Turn on aninmation and everything is so sloooooow. This happens
especially towards the end of

the game when other civs have built vast numbers of ships which insist
on sailing around your

coastline. (I call the this the problem of the flocking fleets where
"flocking" can be replaced by another similar sounding word). The screen
darts around showing these lumbering sailing ships/ironclads/etc and it
seems like forever. I

know you can press shift, or even turn off animations - then it is too
fast and you miss the fact

that one ship has landed troops on your coast.

Speed. If you can press shift to speed up movement, why doesn't it speed
up conflicts? Why do I have to sit there for minutes watching the poor
stupid AI throwing warriors against riflemen and witnessing the
slaughter? Turn off animations, and it is too fast and you can miss
important detail.

Order. Civ 3 is much better than Civ2 in playing the pieces in some
logical order, but it doesn't always work. To anyone with half a brain
cell you would want your bombarding units to go first every time,
pounding the target, before then the ground units attack, but this
doesn't always happen, especially towards the end of a game when there
are a lot of units.

Diplomacy. In one recent game the French and Japanese decided to use my
country as one big

battleground. This caused serious difficulties as my workers then
couldn't develop tiles as there

were enemies on them. When I asked them to leave, the only option was
"leave my territory or declare

war!", a risk I couldn't take. Hoewver, my worker only had to set foot
on French soil for all sorts of

threats to be made against me - when half the French army was already
encamped in my country.

Idiocy. Say you are country A sandwiched between B and C. B and C
suddenly go to war. You find vast

numbers of troops from B flooding across your country towards C. No
right of passage agreement exists. This doesn't happen in real life -
why does the AI ignore human players' territory, when the converse is
not true?

Jungle is a real enemy and I haven't learnt to deal with it - it takes
far too long to clear. If you start with a lot of jungle it's best just
to retire rather than spend hours clearing the jungle only to find that
someone else has raced ahead of you in the technology and growing stakes
(this just happened to me)

Workers. One worker takes an age to do anything. Two or more are much
faster and I generally use them in gangs. Why can I not turn them in to
gangs, instead of having to move them in groups of two or three every
time? Even pressing "X" to move them in stacks is wearisome.

Workers. I always end up at the end of a game with a lot of workers
building railways and clearing pollution. Shift + A is useful. Except
when someone declares war on you and my workers always insist of
building a railway in a tile next to an enemy unit. Result, slaughter of
workers. Why can I not issue an instruction to all workers to return to
base somewhere.

Interface. I wish G were the Go to instruction. When the list of city
comes up, why can't I cycle through my cities by using the initial
letter of the city - so pressing "r" would take me to Ravenna, then Rome
etc (as with civ 2)?

I really miss animated Wonders.

If you can produce cavalry (which use rifles) why can't you build
riflemen? It seems silly to have cavalry on the same battlefield as
muskets.

Muskets. I can't prove anything, but they seem weaker than pikemen.
Pikemen seem to survive longer than muskets under attack. If this is
correct, it shouldn't be so.

Longbowmen. One of their strengths was their defence against knights
(e.g. Agincourt). This is not reflected in the game when knights will
routinely destroy longbowmen.

cavalry. They are supposed to retreat when losing, but they don't always
do this. why?

Deposing cities. I regularly find that captured cities go over to the
other side - with good reason. When captured, they have nothing left in
them very often, not even a temple, so disorder is the order of the day.
By the time you have built great cultural things to keep the masses
entertained, they have gone over to the other side. Why does this result
in the death of all occupying forces? If you garrison them with a huge
force, this should keep order, but in fact they all get killed by even
some small city that revolts. It actually pays you to destroy the city,
and commit genocide against the inhabitants. Surprisingly, this doesn't
seem to disturb the population of a democracy, who watch as you go
through an enemy country razing everything to the ground killing
everyone in sight. But this is safer than trying to garrison captured
cities which might then revolt and destroy the occupying forces. Very
unrealistic.

Well, that's my wishlist for the moment. Glad I got it off my chest.

Boris
21 answers Last reply
More about anoying civ3
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Boris" <boris@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9510AF983CEA3borishomecom@216.168.3.30...
    >
    > Well, that's my wishlist for the moment. Glad I got it off my chest.

    I'm glad you feel better. Now go play some more ;)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In article <Xns9510AF983CEA3borishomecom@216.168.3.30>, boris@home.com
    says...

    > Idiocy. Say you are country A sandwiched between B and C. B and C
    > suddenly go to war. You find vast numbers of troops from B flooding
    > across your country towards C. No right of passage agreement exists.
    > This doesn't happen in real life -

    How about Belgium, 1914. Or the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, 1940.
    Cambodia c1970.

    Of course it doesn't happen as often in real life, fortunately.

    > why does the AI ignore human players' territory, when the converse is
    > not true?

    [snip]

    > Workers. One worker takes an age to do anything. Two or more are much
    > faster and I generally use them in gangs. Why can I not turn them in to
    > gangs, instead of having to move them in groups of two or three every
    > time? Even pressing "X" to move them in stacks is wearisome.
    >

    Because the computer can't guess whether you want to move just one or
    the whole stack unless you tell it?

    > If you can produce cavalry (which use rifles) why can't you build
    > riflemen? It seems silly to have cavalry on the same battlefield as
    > muskets.
    >

    This puzzled me. What cavalry use rifles? They look like early 19th
    century dragoons to me, so they'd be using smoothbore carbines.

    > Muskets. I can't prove anything, but they seem weaker than pikemen.
    > Pikemen seem to survive longer than muskets under attack. If this is
    > correct, it shouldn't be so.

    Dunno. Could be subjective. Maybe your pikemen were fortified and your
    musketmen weren't. I can't say I've noticed this.

    > Longbowmen. One of their strengths was their defence against knights
    > (e.g. Agincourt). This is not reflected in the game when knights will
    > routinely destroy longbowmen.

    This is not right. Bowmen did not operate on their own. The kinds of
    battles where bowmen (plus other armoured pike-armed infantry and
    small numbers of mounted or dismounted knights) saw off larger numbers
    of mounted knights are the equivalent of Civ3 veteran longbowmen
    stacked with fortified pikemen on a hill (and probably in a fortess).
    Would regular knights still generally win?

    > cavalry. They are supposed to retreat when losing, but they don't always
    > do this. why?
    >

    It's random. And they have to have at least 1MP left.

    Pete
    --
    Pete Gray
    while ($cat!="home"){$mice=="play";}
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Pete Gray" <pete@petergray.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b429beb9cc9b0f998968a@news.zen.co.uk...
    > In article <Xns9510AF983CEA3borishomecom@216.168.3.30>, boris@home.com
    > says...
    >
    >
    > > cavalry. They are supposed to retreat when losing, but they don't always
    > > do this. why?
    > >
    >
    > It's random. And they have to have at least 1MP left.

    They will retreat when they get to 1hp. If they don't retreat then, they're
    not gonna.
    The opposing unit must have 2hp or more when fast unit gets to 1hp.
    The other unit must not have movement > 1
    The higher the experience level, the greater the chance for retreat.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Boris" <boris@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9510AF983CEA3borishomecom@216.168.3.30...
    > I have been playing Civ since it came out, and I took some time to get
    > used to Civ3, but after

    <snip>

    > Here are a few items on my wishlist.
    >
    > Speed. Turn on aninmation and everything is so sloooooow. This happens
    > especially towards the end of the game when other civs have built vast
    >umbers of ships which insist on sailing around your
    <coastline.The screen
    > darts around showing these lumbering sailing ships/ironclads/etc and it
    > seems like forever. I

    This has been happening in Civ since Civ 1, Alpha Centauri was really bad
    for it once the AI got Air power.
    And the Animations in Civ3 do make it slower and more annoying, thats why I
    turn all animations except battle animations off.

    > know you can press shift, or even turn off animations - then it is too
    > fast and you miss the fact that one ship has landed troops on your coast.

    Do a full check of your sea borders every turn, its faster than having
    Animations on IMHO


    <snip>
    >Civ3 is much better than Civ2 in playing the pieces in some
    > logical order, but it doesn't always work.

    Hmmm I find it works fairly well, enough so I don't bitch about it at least,
    Civ 2 and AC were much worst.


    > Diplomacy. <snip>
    >Idiocy. Say you are country A sandwiched between B and C. B and C
    > suddenly go to war. You find vast
    > numbers of troops from B flooding across your country towards C. No
    > right of passage agreement exists. This doesn't happen in real life -
    > why does the AI ignore human players' territory, when the converse is
    > not true?

    Well actually it has, but only when the Countries doing it have vastly out
    powered the countries they were crossing, and usually pre-Napoleonic era
    But yeah your generally right, its not the normal thing to do, but again its
    something Civ players have had to put up with since Civ1. The best way to
    stop it being annoying IMHO,
    ROP - Especially after you have a Railroad System. Either that or have a
    Military that scares them, then tell em to get out and they generally will.
    But I agree, while the Diplomacy is better than previous Civ Games, there
    are a fair few things still need fixing


    > Snip>
    >Workers. One worker takes an age to do anything. Two or more are much
    > faster and I generally use them in gangs. Why can I not turn them in to
    > gangs, instead of having to move them in groups of two or three every
    > time?

    Shift-A

    > Workers. I always end up at the end of a game with a lot of workers
    > building railways and clearing pollution. Shift + A is useful. Except
    > when someone declares war on you and my workers always insist of
    > building a railway in a tile next to an enemy unit. Result, slaughter of
    > workers. Why can I not issue an instruction to all workers to return to
    > base somewhere.

    If you have so many workers that they only come out when you take a city,
    then why worry if you lose a few?


    > Interface. I wish G were the Go to instruction. When the list of city
    > comes up, why can't I cycle through my cities by using the initial
    > letter of the city - so pressing "r" would take me to Ravenna, then Rome
    > etc (as with civ 2)?

    Hehehe when I first got Civ3, this used to really jack me off, but now I
    don't bother with it, just G and move the cursor to where you want them.


    >
    > If you can produce cavalry (which use rifles) why can't you build
    > riflemen? It seems silly to have cavalry on the same battlefield as
    > muskets.

    Yeah it would be silly, if the Cavalry was using Long Rifled Muskets. But
    since they would be using Short Musket-Carbines I don't see a Problem.
    Also Riflemen aren't armed with much better weapons that Musketmen, its more
    a Formation-Strategy Change. They refined the Musket Man Battle unit
    dramatically during the
    Napoleonic Wars and I get the impression that is more what the Rifleman
    represents

    >
    > Muskets. I can't prove anything, but they seem weaker than pikemen.
    > Pikemen seem to survive longer than muskets under attack. If this is
    > correct, it shouldn't be so.

    Actually yeah I have noticed this a little, but usually only when they are
    getting attacked by Knights or Cavalry. But hey that's what pikemen were
    designed to defend against so maybe its supposed to be that way

    > Longbowmen. One of their strengths was their defence against knights
    > (e.g. Agincourt). This is not reflected in the game when knights will
    > routinely destroy longbowmen.

    Yeah I've never understood their reasoning on this, though in Conquests they
    have at least given them a Bombardment Factor, so they can damage an
    attacking force before it hits the Infantry type units.

    >
    > cavalry. They are supposed to retreat when losing, but they don't always
    > do this. why?
    I think its a 66% chance, and only against units with a move of 1, Move of 2
    or 3 negates it

    >
    > Deposing cities.
    I made a long reply about this in another thread so wont do it again.
    But your point about all units being destroyed, I agree is stupid, they
    should be moved out of the enemy territory and probably left on 1 or 2 HP,
    but not destroyed.
    Well at least not all of them :)

    >Very unrealistic.

    > Well, that's my wishlist for the moment. Glad I got it off my chest.

    So am I , though I must say if a game pissed me off this much I simply
    wouldn't play it :)

    >
    > Boris

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

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

    "John Simpson" <I_am@melbourne.net.au> wrote in
    news:40d8cf3f$3_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:

    huge snip
    >
    >> Well, that's my wishlist for the moment. Glad I got it off my chest.
    >
    > So am I , though I must say if a game pissed me off this much I simply
    > wouldn't play it :)
    >
    >>
    >> Boris
    >

    well I never said I wouldn't ever play again, just a few points, probably I
    was sore because I had crashed out twice in succession.

    Interesting what you and another say about carbines for the cavalry -
    hadn't thought of that.

    I'd like to take a vote on muskets - are they weaker than pikemen, and are
    they therefore worth building?

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

    Boris <boris@home.com> wrote in
    news:Xns95114D304D3BBborishomecom@216.168.3.30:


    > I'd like to take a vote on muskets - are they weaker than pikemen,
    > and are they therefore worth building?

    They are not weaker than pikemen and therefore are worth building.

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

    On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:15:33 -0000, Boris <boris@home.com> wrote:

    >I have been playing Civ since it came out, and I took some time to get
    >used to Civ3, but after
    >
    >extensive playing - even getting a personal best - this does not hide
    >the fact that there are some extremely annoying things about the game.
    >
    >Here are a few items on my wishlist.
    >
    >Speed. Turn on aninmation and everything is so sloooooow. This happens
    >especially towards the end of
    >the game when other civs have built vast numbers of ships which insist
    >on sailing around your
    >
    >coastline. (I call the this the problem of the flocking fleets where
    >"flocking" can be replaced by another similar sounding word). The screen
    >darts around showing these lumbering sailing ships/ironclads/etc and it
    >seems like forever. I
    >
    >know you can press shift, or even turn off animations - then it is too
    >fast and you miss the fact
    >
    >that one ship has landed troops on your coast.

    I'm not sure what you want from this. Ultimate speed -- the fastest
    things can run -- is CPU dependent. The more CPU power, the more of
    it gets consumed running the game. The balance is always to get the
    game to run at a tolerable speed, so the end game period isn't too
    slow.

    Skip animations is the simple solution.

    My wish list would be for a replay of enemy moves, so you can
    double-check glimpses. You know, when a ship (especially) moves past
    your units, and no longer is in sight on your turn.

    Or just some sort of "contact" report, whether animated replay or
    something else, to let you know where enemy moves happened.

    If at peace, though, this slows you down. If things landed on your
    coast and you have units on sentry, they wake up, letting you spot the
    invaders and react.

    >Speed. If you can press shift to speed up movement, why doesn't it speed
    >up conflicts? Why do I have to sit there for minutes watching the poor
    >stupid AI throwing warriors against riflemen and witnessing the
    >slaughter? Turn off animations, and it is too fast and you can miss
    >important detail.

    I don't know, maybe the combat animations cover up some of the
    calculation time for battle results? I don't know that it is true,
    though -- when trade nets are disrupted, the game still slows down
    recalculating them.

    >Order. Civ 3 is much better than Civ2 in playing the pieces in some
    >logical order, but it doesn't always work. To anyone with half a brain
    >cell you would want your bombarding units to go first every time,
    >pounding the target, before then the ground units attack, but this
    >doesn't always happen, especially towards the end of a game when there
    >are a lot of units.

    If you've moved past the artillery units, just select one, then
    they'll be first in the list of local units to be selected. The units
    do go in a logical order of all active units on the current screen.

    >Diplomacy. In one recent game the French and Japanese decided to use my
    >country as one big
    >
    >battleground. This caused serious difficulties as my workers then
    >couldn't develop tiles as there
    >
    >were enemies on them. When I asked them to leave, the only option was
    >"leave my territory or declare
    >
    >war!", a risk I couldn't take. Hoewver, my worker only had to set foot
    >on French soil for all sorts of
    >
    >threats to be made against me - when half the French army was already
    >encamped in my country.

    The AI gives you the same option -- leave or declare war -- if you
    enter. Now, logically the AI, involved in a war, would accept
    leaving.

    But a simpler solution is to give them Right of Passage, so they
    quickly move on past.

    >Idiocy. Say you are country A sandwiched between B and C. B and C
    >suddenly go to war. You find vast
    >
    >numbers of troops from B flooding across your country towards C. No
    >right of passage agreement exists. This doesn't happen in real life -
    >why does the AI ignore human players' territory, when the converse is
    >not true?

    The AI doesn't "ignore" it. Humans let the AI get away with
    intruding, rather than asking them to leave.

    BTW, if you do it on the first turn of intrusion, it doesn't ask
    "leave or declare war". Or is that if they aren't in attack range on
    one of your cities. Anyway, if you catch them right away, it is much
    less risky -- unless they are of a mind to attack you anyway, in which
    case, you solve the problem ;-) Just ally with the other, offer right
    of passage, then the two of you end the war by taking out the other
    side.

    As for real life, armies in the past often moved as they wished. If
    the nation moved through wasn't powerful enough to stop them, there
    was no need for a right of passage. The game covers a wide time
    period -- modern "hard border" states are nothing like most ancient
    nations.

    >Jungle is a real enemy and I haven't learnt to deal with it - it takes
    >far too long to clear. If you start with a lot of jungle it's best just
    >to retire rather than spend hours clearing the jungle only to find that
    >someone else has raced ahead of you in the technology and growing stakes
    >(this just happened to me)

    Don't clear it -- move elsewhere.

    Historically, this is just fine of course. Jungle-filled areas are
    no good for making large civilizations, at least not quickly and
    easily.

    >Workers. One worker takes an age to do anything. Two or more are much
    >faster and I generally use them in gangs. Why can I not turn them in to
    >gangs, instead of having to move them in groups of two or three every
    >time? Even pressing "X" to move them in stacks is wearisome.

    How many to use in a gang for optimal results? BTW, you can move
    stacks, but as you noticed, you can't give them all the same order.

    But you *can* use the automated commands to do the same job. If you
    want to use them to build roads, just assign them to that, and they'll
    gang up just fine.

    OTOH -- I agree that micromanaging this is more effective in game
    terms, and there is no simple solution. Except, possibly, allowing
    for "group" moves and commands, which could apply to anything, not
    just workers.

    Except that you know you can easily overkill the work by assigning
    too many workers? Also, if you're building railroads -- one of my
    favorite mass worker tasks -- the ideal pattern is a complex leapfrog
    of workers. You assign a couple to build a road, then with that done,
    more move onto that spot to make a railroad. Then, more move past --
    on the newly made, no move cost railroad -- to a new unroaded area, in
    numbers sufficient that on the next turn, they'll complete the roads
    in all squares. Repeat until the railroad is finished.

    (If you play a variant with move 2 workers, you can do even better,
    building the new roads on the same turn, then doing the railroad build
    and new road making over and over, allowing for near-instant rail/road
    creation up to the limit of your available workers).

    In theory, the automated build road/railroad command should do this
    as well. In practice, the automation doesn't assign workers as well
    as a human. But in terms of micromanaging, it is wonderful, because
    you really can ignore the demand to track each worker, instead, only
    figure out the sorts of jobs you want done.

    >Workers. I always end up at the end of a game with a lot of workers
    >building railways and clearing pollution. Shift + A is useful. Except
    >when someone declares war on you and my workers always insist of
    >building a railway in a tile next to an enemy unit. Result, slaughter of
    >workers. Why can I not issue an instruction to all workers to return to
    >base somewhere.

    Likely, sequence of play traps your workers. They've already moved,
    you can't wake them up anyway.

    A "return home" thing might not be a bad idea, but I don't know how
    useful it would be. Better would be making the automation recognize
    "war zones, " and let the workers ask to cancel orders -- or not move
    in/act too close to an enemy.

    >Interface. I wish G were the Go to instruction. When the list of city
    >comes up, why can't I cycle through my cities by using the initial
    >letter of the city - so pressing "r" would take me to Ravenna, then Rome
    >etc (as with civ 2)?

    Maybe -- but I rarely use the goto city thing anyway.

    >I really miss animated Wonders.

    Kind of cute, but they have more of them. Still, it is pretty
    simple -- it would have taken another CD in order to fit them in. I
    think that Civ players would have sprung for it, and the hard drive
    space to play without it, but you never know.

    >If you can produce cavalry (which use rifles) why can't you build
    >riflemen? It seems silly to have cavalry on the same battlefield as
    >muskets.

    No, cavalry uses muskets (saltpeter), whereas riflemen do not. Look
    at the stats, they really aren't that modern.

    >Muskets. I can't prove anything, but they seem weaker than pikemen.
    >Pikemen seem to survive longer than muskets under attack. If this is
    >correct, it shouldn't be so.

    Never noticed that. Musketmen are expensive, which I do notice, but
    they do seem quite effective to me on defense.

    >Longbowmen. One of their strengths was their defence against knights
    >(e.g. Agincourt). This is not reflected in the game when knights will
    >routinely destroy longbowmen.

    Longbowmen operating without other support aren't very good against
    knights. Give them a chance to counterattack (or attack), and they
    are pretty impressive, which a good shot at taking down a knight.

    C3C does improve the defense of archers by giving them artillery
    power in counterattack, which is rather nice. You still want to give
    them other units as guards, though.

    If you put your bowmen out in the field and let knights come after
    them, the outcome is *not* going to be good for the bowmen. Unless
    you can put something in between them -- Agincourt had a lot of foot
    soldiers there, plus knights -- they shouldn't be all that good on
    defense.

    >cavalry. They are supposed to retreat when losing, but they don't always
    >do this. why?

    The retreat has a chance of success, and the enemy unit must be move
    one, nothing faster. Also, if the fast unit has only one hit point
    left, it doesn't get a chance to retreat, because it is dead when it
    loses -- retreat happens before it loses that last one (shouldn't
    matter in a single combat, but if they defend at one hit point, it is
    a factor).

    >Deposing cities. I regularly find that captured cities go over to the
    >other side - with good reason. When captured, they have nothing left in
    >them very often, not even a temple, so disorder is the order of the day.
    >By the time you have built great cultural things to keep the masses
    >entertained, they have gone over to the other side. Why does this result
    >in the death of all occupying forces?

    Stopping the revolution isn't so easy, but it is possible.

    As for why the units all die, I don't know. Logically, they should
    either disband, be salvaged/raided by the natives, outright join the
    native defense force, or run away. The outcome could be pretty
    complex. All in all, having them be dead is a lot better than letting
    the enemy get use of them in any form.

    >If you garrison them with a huge
    >force, this should keep order, but in fact they all get killed by even
    >some small city that revolts.

    Not as of PTW, 1.29f, or C3C -- a garrison present will ensure that
    the city will not change sides. Two ground units per enemy population
    will do the trick. A size 3 city with 6 garrison units will never
    "rebel".

    You only need half this to suppress resistors, but those have a
    *much* higher chance of overthrowing you. As long as there is
    resistance, the risk of rebellion is high. This is different from the
    cultural conversion.


    > It actually pays you to destroy the city,
    >and commit genocide against the inhabitants. Surprisingly, this doesn't
    >seem to disturb the population of a democracy, who watch as you go
    >through an enemy country razing everything to the ground killing
    >everyone in sight. But this is safer than trying to garrison captured
    >cities which might then revolt and destroy the occupying forces. Very
    >unrealistic.

    I don't think that it does pay. Genocide bothers the enemy, but you
    are right, it doesn't seem to bug anyone else. The population turns
    into refugees/slaves, which isn't very nice either.

    I've rarely run into the revolt problem taking out my occupying
    forces, now that I understand it. Simply avoid putting in garrisons
    in cities which aren't reliable, and you will rarely lose them. Pick
    one city, put most of them in it -- enough to guarantee that it won't
    rebel.

    Then, once peace is possible, convert the cities as rapidly as you
    can. Rush-build (every turn) culture buildings. Drop
    workers/settlers into the city to convert it to your civ faster --
    once more than half the population is your people, it is very unlikely
    to convert. Put big garrisons into any city which is in proximity to
    cities of that civ which you've left.

    I prefer to take out all on a continent, if I can. If not, I use
    very limited garrisons on them, in case they do rebel -- unless I can
    put in a big enough one, it doesn't pay to have much there at all.


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

    "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in
    news:Xns95112D1B69D34kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4:

    > Boris <boris@home.com> wrote in
    > news:Xns95114D304D3BBborishomecom@216.168.3.30:
    >
    >
    >> I'd like to take a vote on muskets - are they weaker than pikemen,
    >> and are they therefore worth building?
    >
    > They are not weaker than pikemen and therefore are worth building.
    >

    but what's your impression, I just seem to lose muskets very easily,
    pikemen just seem to last out longer - sorry if I can't reply, going on
    hols for a few days.

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

    Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in
    news:8ibkd0tfbj8qmbrjtlqheninnu235ds0qh@4ax.com:

    >
    >>Deposing cities. I regularly find that captured cities go over to the
    >>other side - with good reason. When captured, they have nothing left in
    >>them very often, not even a temple, so disorder is the order of the day.
    >>By the time you have built great cultural things to keep the masses
    >>entertained, they have gone over to the other side. Why does this result
    >>in the death of all occupying forces?
    >
    > Stopping the revolution isn't so easy, but it is possible.
    >
    > As for why the units all die, I don't know. Logically, they should
    > either disband, be salvaged/raided by the natives, outright join the
    > native defense force, or run away. The outcome could be pretty
    > complex. All in all, having them be dead is a lot better than letting
    > the enemy get use of them in any form.
    >
    >>If you garrison them with a huge
    >>force, this should keep order, but in fact they all get killed by even
    >>some small city that revolts.
    >
    > Not as of PTW, 1.29f, or C3C -- a garrison present will ensure that
    > the city will not change sides. Two ground units per enemy population
    > will do the trick. A size 3 city with 6 garrison units will never
    > "rebel".

    I didn't know that, I'll give this one a try.

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

    I've never really compared pikemen to musketmen, but I do have a "national
    policy" regarding musketmen. I only use them for defensive positions in
    cities and they work well there. You will not find one of my musketmen
    sauntering about the garden. I also keep them into infantry because they do
    offer reasonable defensive value in cities.

    vsyxx
    "Boris" <boris@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95114D304D3BBborishomecom@216.168.3.30...
    > "John Simpson" <I_am@melbourne.net.au> wrote in
    > news:40d8cf3f$3_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:
    >
    > huge snip
    > >
    > >> Well, that's my wishlist for the moment. Glad I got it off my chest.
    > >
    > > So am I , though I must say if a game pissed me off this much I simply
    > > wouldn't play it :)
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Boris
    > >
    >
    > well I never said I wouldn't ever play again, just a few points, probably
    I
    > was sore because I had crashed out twice in succession.
    >
    > Interesting what you and another say about carbines for the cavalry -
    > hadn't thought of that.
    >
    > I'd like to take a vote on muskets - are they weaker than pikemen, and are
    > they therefore worth building?
    >
    > Boris
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Boris" <boris@home.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns951211F0822FEborishomecom@216.168.3.30...
    > "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in
    > news:Xns95112D1B69D34kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4:
    >
    > > Boris <boris@home.com> wrote in
    > > news:Xns95114D304D3BBborishomecom@216.168.3.30:
    > >
    > >
    > >> I'd like to take a vote on muskets - are they weaker than pikemen,
    > >> and are they therefore worth building?
    > >
    > > They are not weaker than pikemen and therefore are worth building.
    > >
    >
    > but what's your impression, I just seem to lose muskets very easily,
    > pikemen just seem to last out longer - sorry if I can't reply, going on
    > hols for a few days.

    When you have pikemen, the best unit they are defending against would have
    an attack of 4.

    With musketmen, you are more likely to be defending against cavalry with an
    attack of 6.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Pete Gray" <pete@petergray.com> skrev i melding
    news:MPG.1b429beb9cc9b0f998968a@news.zen.co.uk...
    >
    > How about Belgium, 1914. Or the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, 1940.
    > Cambodia c1970.
    >
    In 1940 the germans attacked the military forces of the Netherlands,
    Belgium, even though France was their main target. And they attacked the
    military forces of Norway - over a year before the russian campaign.They was
    not just passing through, as AI is in the example Boris referred to.

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

    In article <9KgDc.675$89.231523@juliett.dax.net>,
    jens.svenningsen@c2i.net says...
    >
    > "Pete Gray" <pete@petergray.com> skrev i melding
    > news:MPG.1b429beb9cc9b0f998968a@news.zen.co.uk...
    > >
    > > How about Belgium, 1914. Or the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, 1940.
    > > Cambodia c1970.
    > >
    > In 1940 the germans attacked the military forces of the Netherlands,
    > Belgium, even though France was their main target. And they attacked the
    > military forces of Norway - over a year before the russian campaign.They was
    > not just passing through, as AI is in the example Boris referred to.
    >
    > Jens Svenningsen
    >

    In 1940 the Germans chose to march through two neutral countries to
    get at the enemy they were actually at war with. The fact that the
    military forces of those countries tried to resist is not really
    relevant. The contention was that countries don't just march through
    neutral territory to get at their enemies.

    As for Norway, I'm not referring to the Russian campaign, but the fact
    that both Britain and Germany planned to invade Norway (a neutral
    country) as part of their war with one another. As it happens, the
    Germans got their invasion in first, although the British had already
    violated Norwegian territorial waters.

    Pete
    --
    Pete Gray
    while ($cat!="home"){$mice=="play";}
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Pete Gray" <pete@petergray.com> skrev i melding
    news:MPG.1b48141a4ab8cd6e989696@news.zen.co.uk...
    > In article <9KgDc.675$89.231523@juliett.dax.net>,
    > jens.svenningsen@c2i.net says...
    > >
    > > "Pete Gray" <pete@petergray.com> skrev i melding
    > > news:MPG.1b429beb9cc9b0f998968a@news.zen.co.uk...
    > > >
    > > > How about Belgium, 1914. Or the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, 1940.
    > > > Cambodia c1970.
    > > >
    > > In 1940 the germans attacked the military forces of the Netherlands,
    > > Belgium, even though France was their main target. And they attacked the
    > > military forces of Norway - over a year before the russian campaign.They
    was
    > > not just passing through, as AI is in the example Boris referred to.
    > >
    > > Jens Svenningsen
    > >
    >
    > In 1940 the Germans chose to march through two neutral countries to
    > get at the enemy they were actually at war with. The fact that the
    > military forces of those countries tried to resist is not really
    > relevant. The contention was that countries don't just march through
    > neutral territory to get at their enemies.
    >
    > As for Norway, I'm not referring to the Russian campaign, but the fact
    > that both Britain and Germany planned to invade Norway (a neutral
    > country) as part of their war with one another. As it happens, the
    > Germans got their invasion in first, although the British had already
    > violated Norwegian territorial waters.
    >
    > Pete
    > --
    > Pete Gray
    > while ($cat!="home"){$mice=="play";}

    Boris referred to "country A sandwiched between B and C. B and C
    suddenly go to war. You find vast numbers of troops from B flooding across
    your country towards C. No right of passage agreement exists".

    Still country A can choose to remain neutral and continue peace time
    production. That option was never offered the belgians, dutch or norwegians.
    But if your point is that "great powers" tend to ignore lesser nations'
    neutrality when they go to war, I certainly agree.

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

    In article <MPG.1b48141a4ab8cd6e989696@news.zen.co.uk>, Pete Gray <pete@petergray.com> wrote:
    >
    >In 1940 the Germans chose to march through two neutral countries to
    >get at the enemy they were actually at war with. The fact that the
    >military forces of those countries tried to resist is not really
    >relevant. The contention was that countries don't just march through
    >neutral territory to get at their enemies.

    A better example might be the Crusades. A number of Christian kingdoms were
    rather startled to discover huge armies of crusaders on the way to the Holy
    Land marching across their territory.

    >As for Norway, I'm not referring to the Russian campaign, but the fact
    >that both Britain and Germany planned to invade Norway (a neutral
    >country) as part of their war with one another. As it happens, the
    >Germans got their invasion in first, although the British had already
    >violated Norwegian territorial waters.

    Classic Civ3 -- dog pile on Norway!

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

    On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:38:42 GMT,
    mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:

    >In article <MPG.1b48141a4ab8cd6e989696@news.zen.co.uk>, Pete Gray <pete@petergray.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>In 1940 the Germans chose to march through two neutral countries to
    >>get at the enemy they were actually at war with. The fact that the
    >>military forces of those countries tried to resist is not really
    >>relevant. The contention was that countries don't just march through
    >>neutral territory to get at their enemies.
    >
    >A better example might be the Crusades. A number of Christian kingdoms were
    >rather startled to discover huge armies of crusaders on the way to the Holy
    >Land marching across their territory.

    Yes, and earlier wars didn't respect borders much either.

    I think that it would make sense for some tech -- Nationalism? -- to
    increase the diplomatic defense of borders, such that violating the
    land border would no longer be acceptable sans right of passage.
    Something to wish for -- I don't know if it can be implemented in
    Civ3, but it definitely would help the feel of the game historically.

    But maybe it could be in C3C, make the AI less inclined to test the
    borders, even in wartime, without asking for right of passage first.
    After all, if I as a human want to cross the AI territory, I need to
    ask for right of passage. The AI *never* just lets me skip across
    without a challenge. Never, not once.

    Still, though annoying, you can ask the AI to leave every single
    turn that they try this. Don't skip turns, if you want to keep them
    out -- it seems that they are more likely to declare war if they are
    deep into your territory. Alternatively, give both sides right of
    passage -- it is strange, but it does cut down on the problem of them
    being stuck slowly travelling through.

    >>As for Norway, I'm not referring to the Russian campaign, but the fact
    >>that both Britain and Germany planned to invade Norway (a neutral
    >>country) as part of their war with one another. As it happens, the
    >>Germans got their invasion in first, although the British had already
    >>violated Norwegian territorial waters.
    >
    >Classic Civ3 -- dog pile on Norway!


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

    I agree with your AI upgrade suggestions. To add another point, I would
    like to be able to force allied civ units out of my territory without
    escalating matters. For now I just let them roam around unless I see a
    grouping or threatening behavior. FTR (for the record), I could have blown
    them away but my civ was pretty war weary - even though I had Universal
    Sufferage - and I just couldn't be bothered. I was on my way to a Space
    Race victory and any more hostilities wouldn't help.

    Given recent experience, if there is a mutual protection pact and you go to
    war against a common enemy, I think right of passage is implied.

    Maybe they could add a "Visa" function for right of passage aggreements. I
    know this is getting too complicated, but in trying to emulate the real
    world, could it be possible to integrate these functions. i.e. you cancel
    right of passage (where is the aggreement cancellation function anyway?),
    then the units might either vacat or go underground for minor espionage or
    insurgency. Beyond my abilities anyway.
    "Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    news:cc50e0d8rs01p38u8srr5nl2n22lgnma9o@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:38:42 GMT,
    > mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:
    >
    > >In article <MPG.1b48141a4ab8cd6e989696@news.zen.co.uk>, Pete Gray
    <pete@petergray.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>In 1940 the Germans chose to march through two neutral countries to
    > >>get at the enemy they were actually at war with. The fact that the
    > >>military forces of those countries tried to resist is not really
    > >>relevant. The contention was that countries don't just march through
    > >>neutral territory to get at their enemies.
    > >
    > >A better example might be the Crusades. A number of Christian kingdoms
    were
    > >rather startled to discover huge armies of crusaders on the way to the
    Holy
    > >Land marching across their territory.
    >
    > Yes, and earlier wars didn't respect borders much either.
    >
    > I think that it would make sense for some tech -- Nationalism? -- to
    > increase the diplomatic defense of borders, such that violating the
    > land border would no longer be acceptable sans right of passage.
    > Something to wish for -- I don't know if it can be implemented in
    > Civ3, but it definitely would help the feel of the game historically.
    >
    > But maybe it could be in C3C, make the AI less inclined to test the
    > borders, even in wartime, without asking for right of passage first.
    > After all, if I as a human want to cross the AI territory, I need to
    > ask for right of passage. The AI *never* just lets me skip across
    > without a challenge. Never, not once.
    >
    > Still, though annoying, you can ask the AI to leave every single
    > turn that they try this. Don't skip turns, if you want to keep them
    > out -- it seems that they are more likely to declare war if they are
    > deep into your territory. Alternatively, give both sides right of
    > passage -- it is strange, but it does cut down on the problem of them
    > being stuck slowly travelling through.
    >
    > >>As for Norway, I'm not referring to the Russian campaign, but the fact
    > >>that both Britain and Germany planned to invade Norway (a neutral
    > >>country) as part of their war with one another. As it happens, the
    > >>Germans got their invasion in first, although the British had already
    > >>violated Norwegian territorial waters.
    > >
    > >Classic Civ3 -- dog pile on Norway!
    >
    >
    > --
    > *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    > ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    > *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Hi Boris,

    I concur with your entire article. Based on Civ-3 receiving "game of
    the year" honors, I bought the software, installed, and played it.
    The first couple of games were exercises in futility and frustration.
    Then, I hit the internet figuring that I was missing something (thank
    heavens for the Internet). The manual for the game is aweful!!! I've
    forced myself to play about a dozen games now, but, while I win more
    than I lose, the game is still very annoying.

    Ranged weapons do not seem to have noticeable effects on stationary,
    melee troops.

    The computer routinely disregards rules that apply to human players,
    e.g., wandering through territories, unbelievable (literally
    unbelievable) luck, resource consumption, etc., etc., etc.

    It takes **forever** to get anything done for most of the game.

    Yikes!!! Knitting seems more intellectually challenging, and at least
    you have a sock or something when you are done!

    I'm uninstalling this dog of a game tonight!!!

    Later,

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

    Boris <boris@home.com> wrote in message news:<Xns951258E02FD6borishomecom@216.168.3.30>...
    > Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in
    > news:8ibkd0tfbj8qmbrjtlqheninnu235ds0qh@4ax.com:
    >
    > >
    > >>Deposing cities. I regularly find that captured cities go over to the
    > >>other side - with good reason. When captured, they have nothing left in
    > >>them very often, not even a temple, so disorder is the order of the day.
    > >>By the time you have built great cultural things to keep the masses
    > >>entertained, they have gone over to the other side. Why does this result
    > >>in the death of all occupying forces?
    > >
    > > Stopping the revolution isn't so easy, but it is possible.
    > >
    > > As for why the units all die, I don't know. Logically, they should
    > > either disband, be salvaged/raided by the natives, outright join the
    > > native defense force, or run away. The outcome could be pretty
    > > complex. All in all, having them be dead is a lot better than letting
    > > the enemy get use of them in any form.
    > >
    > >>If you garrison them with a huge
    > >>force, this should keep order, but in fact they all get killed by even
    > >>some small city that revolts.
    > >
    > > Not as of PTW, 1.29f, or C3C -- a garrison present will ensure that
    > > the city will not change sides. Two ground units per enemy population
    > > will do the trick. A size 3 city with 6 garrison units will never
    > > "rebel".
    >
    > I didn't know that, I'll give this one a try.
    >
    > thanks

    There is an explanation on how culture flipping works. This is a text
    written by Dan Magaha who is working at Firaxis.

    for the whole thread
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14337

    David

    ** quote beginning **

    In response to the requests I received earlier this month with regards
    to how "culture-flipping" works, I sat down with Soren, the lead
    programmer on Civ III, and he explained which factors influence the
    probability of a city "flipping" and what the relative weight of each
    factor was.

    The base values used to determine the chance of city flipping are as
    follows:

    A) The number of foreign nationals in the city in question (resisters
    are counted twice), and

    B) The number of the 21-tile city-radius squares of the city in
    question that fall inside your cultural borders.


    These numbers are then further modified by a variety of factors,
    applied multiplicatively. Here those are, in order of importance:


    1) The ratio of distances to the respective capitals of both cities.
    Basically, if you're closer to your capital than the other city is to
    its capital, you've got a better chance of getting a flip.

    2) The ratio of total culture points of both civs. Obviously, the
    better your culture is versus the opponent civ, the better your chance
    of getting a flip are.

    3) I didn't even know this, but apparently each city has a "memory"
    and remembers the total amount of culture generated by any civ who has
    ever occupied it. This is the 3rd most important factor, because if
    the "attacking" civ has more historical culture in the city than the
    "defender", the chance of that city flipping to the attacker are
    doubled. This is one reason that conquered cities often flip back to
    their previous owners.

    4) Civil Disorder in a city doubles the chance of that city flipping.

    5) We Love the King (or whatever) Day in a city halves the chance of
    that city flipping.

    6) Lastly, the number of land-based combat units (e.g., any unit with
    at least 1 point of offensive and defensive capability) in the city in
    question are subtracted. This factor is relatively low on the totem
    pole and this shows you why cities can flip even with huge militias
    garrisoned in them.


    Hope this helps.


    Dan
    __________________
    Dan Magaha
    Firaxis Games, Inc.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Before you hit Control Panel>Add/Remove Programs/Civilization III, try a few
    techniques discussed here to get into the flow of the game. I think most
    players have set up a few ground rules to get them through different phases
    of the game. (Well, now that I think of passing a few tips I realize there
    are more than a "few"). To get into the game make sure you start out on
    some good territory, something that is going to produce and allow you to
    grow early. Also, try to make your capitol city centrally located early on.
    Don't waste more than 3 turns at the beginning searching for the perfect
    city location, let your warriors (or scouts if you are America) do that for
    subsequent cities.

    After about ten to twenty turns make sure your non-military units are
    protected from Barbarians. Nothing more frustrating than spending a lot of
    early production on a Settler and have it killed off near the new city
    location. Acquire luxury and strategic resources wherever possible. Balance
    military unit and cultural builds, but where you are being imposed on by
    another Civ, give cultural/happiness builds more priority to gain more
    territory, or even acquire competing cities via defection. There is plenty
    to learn, but it is worth it when you start winning at different levels.
    One last tip, don't be reluctant to an as___le. Don't let other Civs push
    you around, they are probably in an equally vulnerable position.

    vsyxx

    "B. Schneider" <sarss55@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:83123477.0407061014.1ee7c413@posting.google.com...
    > Hi Boris,
    >
    > I concur with your entire article. Based on Civ-3 receiving "game of
    > the year" honors, I bought the software, installed, and played it.
    > The first couple of games were exercises in futility and frustration.
    > Then, I hit the internet figuring that I was missing something (thank
    > heavens for the Internet). The manual for the game is aweful!!! I've
    > forced myself to play about a dozen games now, but, while I win more
    > than I lose, the game is still very annoying.
    >
    > Ranged weapons do not seem to have noticeable effects on stationary,
    > melee troops.
    >
    > The computer routinely disregards rules that apply to human players,
    > e.g., wandering through territories, unbelievable (literally
    > unbelievable) luck, resource consumption, etc., etc., etc.
    >
    > It takes **forever** to get anything done for most of the game.
    >
    > Yikes!!! Knitting seems more intellectually challenging, and at least
    > you have a sock or something when you are done!
    >
    > I'm uninstalling this dog of a game tonight!!!
    >
    > Later,
    >
    > Bryan
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On 6 Jul 2004 11:14:07 -0700, sarss55@yahoo.com (B. Schneider) wrote:

    >Hi Boris,
    >
    >I concur with your entire article. Based on Civ-3 receiving "game of
    >the year" honors, I bought the software, installed, and played it.
    >The first couple of games were exercises in futility and frustration.
    >Then, I hit the internet figuring that I was missing something (thank
    >heavens for the Internet). The manual for the game is aweful!!! I've
    >forced myself to play about a dozen games now, but, while I win more
    >than I lose, the game is still very annoying.

    A lot of people do like it -- and its predecessors. If you didn't
    like the earlier versions, though, then you wouldn't necessarily like
    Civ3 either.

    >Ranged weapons do not seem to have noticeable effects on stationary,
    >melee troops.

    If you mean the bombardment units, you do need to know how to use
    them effectively. I routinely use them when I need more firepower to
    kill the enemy than any one unit can deliver. The effectiveness is
    determined by the ration between bombardment attack vs. target
    defense, modified by terrain and other defense modifiers. The
    catapult, the first bombardment unit, isn't very powerful and rarely
    hurts anything tougher than a warrior/archer. Cannon and later
    artillery, OTOH, can do a nice number on the targets.

    >The computer routinely disregards rules that apply to human players,
    >e.g., wandering through territories, unbelievable (literally
    >unbelievable) luck, resource consumption, etc., etc., etc.

    The AI must follow somewhat different rules than the humans, or
    otherwise it would be too stupid to win the game. However, first
    thing -- you can tell the AI to get out every time, just as it does to
    you. It is the same rule that you face -- except that the AI *always*
    demands your departure.

    Luck is luck -- people tend to remember when the dice go against
    them, when the enemy wins with bad odds, and forget when they get
    lucky. Overall, I've found no sign that the AI is blessed with any
    combat "luck" bonus -- over many battles, the AI loses as much as I'd
    expect from the odds. Not knowing the odds, though, can make you
    mistake what is lucky and what is normal.

    The AI is blessed with limited omniscience. It isn't total, but it
    is enough to make it hard to "sneak" things past the AI. OTOH, it
    isn't "wise," it can act quite stupidly in its attempt to exploit
    things like attacking unguarded cities.

    >It takes **forever** to get anything done for most of the game.
    >
    >Yikes!!! Knitting seems more intellectually challenging, and at least
    >you have a sock or something when you are done!
    >
    >I'm uninstalling this dog of a game tonight!!!

    OK.

    But don't expect others to feel the same way. The game has lots of
    fans, who seem to have figured out not just how to win, but how to
    have fun playing it.

    It *is* easier once you grasp what is going on. But also, you have
    to find the challenges of the game fun, or else it won't matter how
    well you understand it.

    The game does go through phases in development. But as for
    "forever," I can finish a medium-size map game or some scenarions in a
    couple of hours or so. There are huge epic games which are longer,
    but if that isn't what you want, there are ways to play the game with
    a shorter time scale and less time spent waiting to do things.

    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games