Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (
More info?)
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:41:25 -0400, P12 <nomail@all.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:14:26 -0500, in alt.games.civ3 you wrote:
>
>> First risky question -- are you playing a game which was started
>>prior to using the patch? If so, you know that it may not work
>>properly.
>
>No I patched before I started. I was behind because I keep forgetting
>to apply it before I start a new game. This time I remembered.
I did that before -- then had to uninstall in order to get it back
to the unpatched state to finish my game :-(
>> You are in a locked alliance with Denmark -- maybe Denmark
>>negotiating the peace for you made that happen?
>>
>> Otherwise, I don't know. I haven't seen peace happen behind my back
>>before.
>
>Hmm. I guess I have to read up on locked alliances again. I thought
>they only effected my war with civs I am continually at war with. I
>didn't know it effected other wars I was in. Denmark is a pretty
>wimpy alliance so it is likely they declared peace.
I don't know that they work that way. I thought that a locked *war*
precludes peace negotiations, while a locked alliance is equivalent to
an unbreakable mutual protection pact, with the added proviso that you
may not declare war on the other (and I don't think embargo is allowed
either). I can't remember if right of passage is automatic in a
locked alliance.
But I can't think of a way that peace could happen normally behind
your back otherwise, so maybe the alliance's decisions on peace and
war are linked. I never paid attention to whether my locked allies
made peace when I did so.
>> The AI will, however, in any game, make peace, ally with someone
>>else, then declare war -- breaking the alliance, without a qualm. The
>>turns run in sequence, so on its own turn, it does one thing, while on
>>another AI's turn, it is bribed into doing something else. The AI
>>doesn't seem to have an "honor" check on whether to break things
>>before the time limit is up.
>
>I hate it when the form trade embargos agains't me when they are
>supposed to be my ally.
Yeah, the military alliance offers no guarantee of actual mutual
support ;-(
>> Because Republic offers you a shot at doing better than Monarchy,
>>but only if you can finish off your wars. Since you are locked at war
>>with several opponents, part of your "mission" is to end those wars --
>>by conquest, since negotiations are out.
>
>I switched to Monarchy and I am doing much better. Republic offers
>slightly better commerece and slightly less corruption. Monarchy
>offers no war weariness and happiness from garrisoned militatry units.
>My income and productivity jumped up a massive amount after I
>switched. There is too much war going on for war weariness.
I managed to keep war weariness under 50% "give peace a chance" by
either conquering or making peace repeatedly. But going to Monarchy
would avoid that problem, and the AI most definitely will switch when
it is at war, and it *is* going to be at war most of the time in this
one.
>> The French have a military tech advantage, and must exploit it in
>>order to win. Its nearby neighbors are wimpy in comparison.
>>Obviously, you have to do something about your locked enemies, but
>>frankly, only the British are a serious threat. It is just a matter
>>of time before you finish the others off.
>
>They are not that wimpy. It takes a while to break them down. I went
>through quite a lot of units. The British are not much of a threat
>if you keep them busy with other wars. The water keeps them a way.
I know that they have a lot of units, but you can take them out with
a lower number of units. By wimpy, I mean in comparison to taking
down Russia or Britain, neither of which is a peace of cake to
conquer.
With Britain, my simple solution to slow them down was dropping an
army on the island to pillage every square -- especially the
saltpeter, horses, and iron. No iron, no nasty new warships (OK, they
still can enslave and the school turns out new frigates, but they are
a lot weaker). Eventually you may wear them down to take a city,
especially when they "unload" a city's troops onto a ship to invade
somewhere.
Now, that does tie up an army which could be used invading. OTOH,
it puts an army (which can heal in enemy territory) in place to mess
up the enemy, which otherwise would eat up any ordinary invasion force
you dropped. Couple this with workers dropped there to build
fortresses (under the army naturally), and you can do a nice job on
them.
Still, points-wise, I think that the conquest more or less needs to
follow the historical pattern, except that there is little need to go
to Moscow (Russia) because you can win on points before reaching there
if you've taken out Spain plus Prussia or Austria (and of course,
Holland and Italy).
>> Then, the next thing is to figure out which of your other neighbors
>>to take down. Unless you have Britain on the ropes, ripe for
>>immediate conquest, you are better off -- in terms of power gained and
>>victory points -- taking out one of your three neighors. Spain is
>>usually wimpiest, but Austria or Prussia are also good choices.
>
>Austria seems to be keeping up with me in victory points defending
>themselves agains't all the wars I got them into. I just finished off
>all but Britain in the wars I started out agains't. I am not sure who
>I want to go up agains't next.
They have a good shot at expanding, which makes them harder to take
down. Russia is also pretty good.
Given that you can't build new cities in this one, expansion pretty
much comes down to how much force you can deliver. The trick is, the
AI can waste a lot of it with poor tactics, whereas you can do a lot
better with your limited force.
Now, I used one leader for an army, the other for the Forbidden
Palace (in Marseilles, hoping to get both Spain and Italy under its
range). Two armies might be a better conquest option, but you don't
have enough cavalry at the start for a 2nd cavarly army. I'd rather
use the cavalry -- better on attack -- at the start of the game.
Later on, the better infantry is pretty tough and would be amazingly
tough defensively in an army, as well as not being too bad
offensively.
>> I think that, due to the locked alliance issue, you can worry less
>>about breaking alliances -- except for Right of Passage.
>>
>> Also, making sure everyone else is at war is a good way to keep your
>>science competitive. In this scenario, that isn't too hard to
>>arrange.
>
>If I don't keep others at war Britain will bribe them agains't me.
>Russia is probably the biggest threat.
Yeah, it is a world-war sort of situation.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram