Geography

[Guest]

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

After several comfortable victories at regent level Civ3 vanilla, I
thought I'd give the huge map and 16 civs a go before promoting myself
to monarch.

I lost and, perhaps, looking for excuses it seemed to me that I'd been
pretty unlucky with the geography. I was given a thin strip of an island
with no luxuries and, as it turned out, only iron, oil and aluminium as
resources. I made a beeline for mapmaking but only to discover that I
was near one largish and one large continent which had been pretty well
settled.

I got about 10 cities on this island and, as there seemed no possibility
of further expansion I thought I'd aim for a culture or diplomatic
victory. But 10 cities is not much especially on a huge map, so I gave
in to temptation formed a settlement in the large continent which was
later trashed by the dominant civ there, and invaded the nearer larger
continent after the single civ there gratuitously declared war.

I captured one town with horses resource but I spent virtually the rest
of the game defending it. I don't think I would have won anyway but the
amount of military investment relative to its contribution to my civ
made it certain. In the end, I was dragged into a long war, had to go
into communism and there was no way of catching up.

The AI civs which thrived had large landmasses with rivers, luxuries and
resources. Those that didn't, including mine, had smaller areas with few
luxuries etc. Seemed pretty damned unfair to me.

So, my question is: how much does geography play a part in winning or
losing, begging the wider question of how much of this game is luck and
how much skill?



--
Joe Soap

 

[Guest]

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

"Joe Soap" <jsoap@toilet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95217EBECD934carbolic@193.38.113.46...
> After several comfortable victories at regent level Civ3 vanilla, I
> thought I'd give the huge map and 16 civs a go before promoting myself
> to monarch.
>
> I lost and, perhaps, looking for excuses it seemed to me that I'd been
> pretty unlucky with the geography. I was given a thin strip of an island
> with no luxuries and, as it turned out, only iron, oil and aluminium as
> resources. I made a beeline for mapmaking but only to discover that I
> was near one largish and one large continent which had been pretty well
> settled.
>
> I got about 10 cities on this island and, as there seemed no possibility
> of further expansion I thought I'd aim for a culture or diplomatic
> victory. But 10 cities is not much especially on a huge map, so I gave
> in to temptation formed a settlement in the large continent which was
> later trashed by the dominant civ there, and invaded the nearer larger
> continent after the single civ there gratuitously declared war.
>
> I captured one town with horses resource but I spent virtually the rest
> of the game defending it. I don't think I would have won anyway but the
> amount of military investment relative to its contribution to my civ
> made it certain. In the end, I was dragged into a long war, had to go
> into communism and there was no way of catching up.
>
> The AI civs which thrived had large landmasses with rivers, luxuries and
> resources. Those that didn't, including mine, had smaller areas with few
> luxuries etc. Seemed pretty damned unfair to me.
>
> So, my question is: how much does geography play a part in winning or
> losing, begging the wider question of how much of this game is luck and
> how much skill?
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Soap

I'd say it's just about everything. As I've posted before, if I see my
landmass too limited early on, I just start a new game. Civ3 AI works to
'pen' you in by having other civs box you in. Which amazes me that you play
with 16 AI civs.

For comparative reasons, what is that standard game for seasoned
players...eg world size and number of civs. Is there a general scenario
that is considered the 'standard'? I usually play with 5-7 AI civs...so 16
sounds interesting; might give it a try. Thnx.

 

[Guest]

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

Around 7/9/2004 6:58 AM, tooly proclaimed for posterity:

> "Joe Soap" <jsoap@toilet.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95217EBECD934carbolic@193.38.113.46...
>
>>After several comfortable victories at regent level Civ3 vanilla, I
>>thought I'd give the huge map and 16 civs a go before promoting myself
>>to monarch.
>>
>>I lost and, perhaps, looking for excuses it seemed to me that I'd been
>>pretty unlucky with the geography. I was given a thin strip of an island
>>with no luxuries and, as it turned out, only iron, oil and aluminium as
>>resources. I made a beeline for mapmaking but only to discover that I
>>was near one largish and one large continent which had been pretty well
>>settled.
>>
>>I got about 10 cities on this island and, as there seemed no possibility
>>of further expansion I thought I'd aim for a culture or diplomatic
>>victory. But 10 cities is not much especially on a huge map, so I gave
>>in to temptation formed a settlement in the large continent which was
>>later trashed by the dominant civ there, and invaded the nearer larger
>>continent after the single civ there gratuitously declared war.
>>
>>I captured one town with horses resource but I spent virtually the rest
>>of the game defending it. I don't think I would have won anyway but the
>>amount of military investment relative to its contribution to my civ
>>made it certain. In the end, I was dragged into a long war, had to go
>>into communism and there was no way of catching up.
>>
>>The AI civs which thrived had large landmasses with rivers, luxuries and
>>resources. Those that didn't, including mine, had smaller areas with few
>>luxuries etc. Seemed pretty damned unfair to me.
>>
>>So, my question is: how much does geography play a part in winning or
>>losing, begging the wider question of how much of this game is luck and
>>how much skill?
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Joe Soap
>
>
> I'd say it's just about everything. As I've posted before, if I see my
> landmass too limited early on, I just start a new game. Civ3 AI works to
> 'pen' you in by having other civs box you in. Which amazes me that you play
> with 16 AI civs.
>
> For comparative reasons, what is that standard game for seasoned
> players...eg world size and number of civs. Is there a general scenario
> that is considered the 'standard'? I usually play with 5-7 AI civs...so 16
> sounds interesting; might give it a try. Thnx.
>
>

Well, I'd have to say the actual 'standard' map is the baseline upon
which everything else is modified from.

I typically just use that along with the other default geographic
settings (4 billion years, 70% continental, temperate, normal). I do
usually bump up the barbarians to restless though. Every once in awhile
I'll use some extreme settings (arid, warm, pangea) or some other odd
combo just to see how it will play out.



--
Brandon Supernaw - <brandon.public@earthlink.net>
-------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

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

"Joe Soap" <jsoap@toilet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95217EBECD934carbolic@193.38.113.46...


> So, my question is: how much does geography play a part in winning or
> losing, begging the wider question of how much of this game is luck and
> how much skill?

The starting location basically determines how hard the game is going to be.
A poor location means slower growth and therefore less territory/power by
the time land runs out. When starting a new game, look for obvious bonuses
near your settler, like wheat/cows/luxs/river. If you start near or in
jungle, consider a restart asap.

Start location is the luck part. The skill comes in play when you have a
poor location and can compensate for it.

 

[Guest]

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

"tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jLvHc.30899$9t6.11193@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
snip
>
> I'd say it's just about everything. As I've posted before, if I see my
> landmass too limited early on, I just start a new game. Civ3 AI works to
> 'pen' you in by having other civs box you in. Which amazes me that you
play
> with 16 AI civs.

16 civs on a huge map is reasonable. It does help if you have a good start
location and you don't start out with a huge empire.

> For comparative reasons, what is that standard game for seasoned
> players...eg world size and number of civs. Is there a general scenario
> that is considered the 'standard'? I usually play with 5-7 AI civs...so
16
> sounds interesting; might give it a try. Thnx.

Alot of experienced players like wet/warm worlds because once the jungle is
cleared, you have alot of good grassland.

# of opponents depends on map size, how early you plan on going to war, and
how much development you want the AI to do for you. Minimum rivals on a huge
map for me would be 8, but i find 11-12 works well. I might get a good game
going that will qualify for the civfanatics HOF and you need at least 8
rivals on a huge map.

Huge maps require a huge investment of time however, so the map size is very
dependant on the players available time to play.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:27:34 GMT, Joe Soap <jsoap@toilet.com> wrote:

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

Geography and who your neighbors are can make a big difference. For
instance I recall being stuck in the jungle next the Zulu. They where
building cities all around me and by the time they declared war I was
finished.

On the other it is possible to pull of a win from a situation like
your since I have done it before. It was my first use of a civ with
scouts so I learned quickly I was on a tiny Island. I built all
coastal cities to maximize my land potential. I overapped cities since
many would never make it past 6 or 12. I had a nothing but a few
spearmen for milatary and went straight for map making. I followed
the sea patterns to find the main land. Then I used my world map to
trade most of the tech I was missing in one turn. I think I got one
city on the mainland wich I used to load my attack forces into. From
there I was able to expand out with war with few attacks on my island.

 

[daran]

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

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 07:58:27 -0400 tooly <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message <jLvHc.30899$9t6.11193@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...

> Which amazes me that you play with 16 AI civs.

Amazes me too. The game only lets me play with 15.

--
Daran

We found another: 2^24036583-1 is prime <http://www.mersenne.org>