Cities changing sides

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

Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting frustrated
with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.
I downloaded the patch (1.29f I think) and I thought the patch corrected
the problem, or at least gave me the option to prevent it from happening.
It is still happening. Is there an option that I haven't found to prevent
this? Please help...this is so stupid.

One other question: when I create an army out of 4 legionaries (each 3,3),
does this create a 12, 12 unit? IOW, when this army hits something, is it
hitting with an offensive power of 12 or an offensive power of 3? I use
the army to round up weak units and turn them into a powerful unit, but
I'm not sure I'm creating a tank out of a bunch of legionaries. Thanks!
25 answers Last reply
More about cities changing sides
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Around 10/19/2004 12:05 AM, barefoot_tom proclaimed for posterity:
    > Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting frustrated
    > with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
    > warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
    > they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.
    > I downloaded the patch (1.29f I think) and I thought the patch corrected
    > the problem, or at least gave me the option to prevent it from happening.
    > It is still happening. Is there an option that I haven't found to prevent
    > this? Please help...this is so stupid.

    The option you're looking for to disable it, "allow cultural
    conversions", is a checkbox on the Player Setup screen. Unfortunately,
    it is not available in the original vanilla Civ III, but is available in
    both the Civ III Play The World and Civ III Conquests add-ons. I don't
    recall if it was available all along in PTW or was added in one of the
    patches, but it is there in the last patch (1.26/1.27).

    > One other question: when I create an army out of 4 legionaries (each 3,3),
    > does this create a 12, 12 unit? IOW, when this army hits something, is it
    > hitting with an offensive power of 12 or an offensive power of 3? I use
    > the army to round up weak units and turn them into a powerful unit, but
    > I'm not sure I'm creating a tank out of a bunch of legionaries. Thanks!

    As The Stare said, you're only attacking with a "3". The advantage
    comes in that each unit in the army will attack in succession until your
    enemy is whacked. In your example of an army of 4 legionaries, the 1st
    one will attack until it wins or is down to 0 hit points (but it doesn't
    die!), then the second one will take over and attack until it wins or is
    down to 0. Same for the 3rd. The 4th will either win, attack until it
    has 0 hit points at which point the entire army is destroyed, or if it
    is lucky it will withdraw with the entire army retaining 1 hp total.

    --
    Brandon Supernaw - <bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net>
    ---------------------------------------------
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "barefoot_tom" <barefoot_tom@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:bec35854a74858a953d0d25b0ec1d72e@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com...
    > Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting
    > frustrated
    > with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
    > warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
    > they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.
    > I downloaded the patch (1.29f I think) and I thought the patch corrected
    > the problem, or at least gave me the option to prevent it from happening.
    > It is still happening. Is there an option that I haven't found to prevent
    > this? Please help...this is so stupid.

    The biggest cause of culture flipping is the other civ having alot more
    total culture than you. There alot of other factors but that and overlapping
    city radii are the 2 biggest. Propaganda can be an issue as well. It's a
    feature in all versions of civ.


    > One other question: when I create an army out of 4 legionaries (each 3,3),
    > does this create a 12, 12 unit? IOW, when this army hits something, is it
    > hitting with an offensive power of 12 or an offensive power of 3? I use
    > the army to round up weak units and turn them into a powerful unit, but
    > I'm not sure I'm creating a tank out of a bunch of legionaries. Thanks!

    You're only attacking with a 3 unit. It just happens to have a lot of hit
    points.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "barefoot_tom" <barefoot_tom@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bec35854a74858a953d0d25b0ec1d72e@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com>...
    > Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting frustrated
    > with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
    > warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
    > they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.
    > I downloaded the patch (1.29f I think) and I thought the patch corrected
    > the problem, or at least gave me the option to prevent it from happening.
    > It is still happening. Is there an option that I haven't found to prevent
    > this? Please help...this is so stupid.
    >
    > One other question: when I create an army out of 4 legionaries (each 3,3),
    > does this create a 12, 12 unit? IOW, when this army hits something, is it
    > hitting with an offensive power of 12 or an offensive power of 3? I use
    > the army to round up weak units and turn them into a powerful unit, but
    > I'm not sure I'm creating a tank out of a bunch of legionaries. Thanks!

    On culture,

    1. Build more Temples and/or Libaries everywhere to improve your
    cultural rating.

    2. Be careful where your planting new cities if you don't have a
    substanal overall culture lead over the player your planting your
    cities near.

    3. Along the same lines, if you capture a high culture enemy city, you
    may be better off raizing it to ground than capturing.

    4. If you intend to keep a captured city, then strarve it down in size
    substanally if you don't have a big culture lead. Under a cash-rush
    govt, you can also cash rush some of the citizens into foreign workers
    and/or settlers, and found new some cities far from their native lands
    while reducing the total number of foreign citizens in your empire,
    and using the slave workers for tasks that consume workers and/or tile
    improvements and/or joining a city far from their native homeland.

    5. Proper size garrisions help, which is either enough to ensure the
    city will never revolt or else an empty one with offensive units
    parked right outside so it doesn't matter if the city revolts.

    On the armies, under Vanilla (and PTW), the 4 vetran legion army is a
    3-3-1 unit with 16 HP. Each of the units can get promotions in combat,
    specally the one currently being used to attack.

    Under Conquests, the same 4 vetran legion army is a 4.5 - 3.75 - 2
    (blitz) unit with 16 HP. Each of the units can get promotions in
    combat, specally the one currently being used to attack.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:36:11 -0500, Brandon Supernaw
    <bhsupernaw@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    >Around 10/19/2004 12:05 AM, barefoot_tom proclaimed for posterity:
    >> Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting frustrated
    >> with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
    >> warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
    >> they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.
    >> I downloaded the patch (1.29f I think) and I thought the patch corrected
    >> the problem, or at least gave me the option to prevent it from happening.
    >> It is still happening. Is there an option that I haven't found to prevent
    >> this? Please help...this is so stupid.
    >
    >The option you're looking for to disable it, "allow cultural
    >conversions", is a checkbox on the Player Setup screen. Unfortunately,
    >it is not available in the original vanilla Civ III, but is available in
    >both the Civ III Play The World and Civ III Conquests add-ons. I don't
    >recall if it was available all along in PTW or was added in one of the
    >patches, but it is there in the last patch (1.26/1.27).

    I think that 1.29f does help with the culture issue, by allowing
    garrisons to suppress cultural transfer.

    However, you need *huge* garrisons. Two ground attack units (no
    air, artillery sea, or non-attack units count) per alien citizen.
    This is twice what you need to suppress resisters in a newly conquered
    city.

    The easier solution is to have superior culture to your opponent.
    If your culture is higher, it is much less likely that cities will
    revert to them, and very unlikely that your own native cities will
    flip sides.

    >> One other question: when I create an army out of 4 legionaries (each 3,3),
    >> does this create a 12, 12 unit? IOW, when this army hits something, is it
    >> hitting with an offensive power of 12 or an offensive power of 3? I use
    >> the army to round up weak units and turn them into a powerful unit, but
    >> I'm not sure I'm creating a tank out of a bunch of legionaries. Thanks!
    >
    >As The Stare said, you're only attacking with a "3". The advantage
    >comes in that each unit in the army will attack in succession until your
    >enemy is whacked. In your example of an army of 4 legionaries, the 1st
    >one will attack until it wins or is down to 0 hit points (but it doesn't
    >die!), then the second one will take over and attack until it wins or is
    >down to 0. Same for the 3rd. The 4th will either win, attack until it
    >has 0 hit points at which point the entire army is destroyed, or if it
    >is lucky it will withdraw with the entire army retaining 1 hp total.

    Conquests finally gives armies more of a power boost, making them
    even more useful. Before that, they are effectively a lot like three
    or four units working together, with the advantage that none dies
    unless they all do, which makes them much more survivable (and
    economical).


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

    Wow. Thanks for the replies. Apparently I wasn't getting what I thought
    when I formed an army. So help me with my math here: Four 3,3s in an army
    is not a 12,12...it's a 3,3 with 4 times the hit points. Assuming there
    was a unit with an offensive power of 12, wouldn't this be the same as an
    offensive power of 3 with 4 times the hit points. When the game computes
    the winner of a battle, does it look at a 12 vs a 3 and figure the 12 is
    going to win 4 times as often as the 3? Yet, with 4 times the hit points,
    wouldn't the army with an offense of 3 average out against the 12?

    I got a couple more questions but I'll start a new topic for them. thanks!
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On 19 Oct 2004 09:30:08 -0700, Jon Nunn <joncnunn@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > 3. Along the same lines, if you capture a high culture enemy city, you
    > may be better off raizing it to ground than capturing.

    Yes. Drop a settler in where the old city was; the surroundings are
    already cultivated/developed for it, so it grows pretty well. Can
    always drop your own workers into it, get a good sized city that isn't
    going to be pissed off about your continuing war against it's homeland.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "barefoot_tom" <barefoot_tom@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:374120b0d2d846733a18ddfcfe90fa31@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com...
    > Wow. Thanks for the replies. Apparently I wasn't getting what I thought
    > when I formed an army. So help me with my math here: Four 3,3s in an army
    > is not a 12,12...it's a 3,3 with 4 times the hit points. Assuming there
    > was a unit with an offensive power of 12, wouldn't this be the same as an
    > offensive power of 3 with 4 times the hit points. When the game computes
    > the winner of a battle, does it look at a 12 vs a 3 and figure the 12 is
    > going to win 4 times as often as the 3? Yet, with 4 times the hit points,
    > wouldn't the army with an offense of 3 average out against the 12?

    huh?

    Each hit point is a round of battle. This continues until one unit doesn't
    have any hit points left and thus dies.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    e power of 3 with 4 times the hit points. When the game computes
    > the winner of a battle, does it look at a 12 vs a 3 and figure the 12 is
    > going to win 4 times as often as the 3? Yet, with 4 times the hit points,
    > wouldn't the army with an offense of 3 average out against the 12?
    >
    > I got a couple more questions but I'll start a new topic for them. thanks!

    It will be a straightforward 3 v 3 but it will have 12 chances instead of
    the usual 3, 4 or 5 chances.

    As for cities near borders and in danger of cultural conversion I tend to
    keep the majority of the army in an adjacent square and retake and perhaps
    raze the city or just slink away at least knowing I only lost a few units.

    ATB
    The Chris
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In alt.games.civ3 on Tue, 19 Oct 2004, barefoot_tom wrote :
    >Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting frustrated
    >with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
    >warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
    >they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.

    I tend to recapture the cities and shoot all the traitors (well, you
    have to imagine the last part). :)
    --
    Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:48:07 -0400 barefoot_tom
    <barefoot_tom@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    <374120b0d2d846733a18ddfcfe90fa31@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com>...

    > Wow. Thanks for the replies. Apparently I wasn't getting what I thought
    > when I formed an army. So help me with my math here: Four 3,3s in an army
    > is not a 12,12...it's a 3,3 with 4 times the hit points. Assuming there
    > was a unit with an offensive power of 12, wouldn't this be the same as an
    > offensive power of 3 with 4 times the hit points. When the game computes
    > the winner of a battle, does it look at a 12 vs a 3 and figure the 12 is
    > going to win 4 times as often as the 3? Yet, with 4 times the hit points,
    > wouldn't the army with an offense of 3 average out against the 12?

    Personally, I just mentally multiply the attack strength by 4, as you
    suggested.

    Mathematically, it's more complex. For example, compare a regular unit with
    attack strength 12, with an army of four regular units each with attack
    strength 4. The defender in this example is a unit just one HP and a
    modified defence rating of 6. Retreat is impossible in this scenario.

    The single attacker wins unless it loses three rounds out of three. It has
    a 1/3 chance of losing each round, so the probability of a loss is 1/27 (1/3
    to power 3) = 3.70%

    The army wins unless it loses twelve rounds out of twelve. It has a 2/3
    chance of losing each round, so the probability of a loss is 4096/531441
    (2/3 to power 12) = 0.77%

    If the attacker wins, then it's legitimate to ask how many HP it's likely to
    lose:

    For the single attacker, in 54 cases out of 81 it will lose no HP. In 18 it
    will lose one. In 6 it will lose two. In 3 cases it will lose all three.
    We disregard these three cases, so, given that the unit survives, its
    expected HP loss is: 18/78 + 2 * 6/78 = 30/78 = 0.385

    For the army, the expected HP loss is closely approximated by the infinite
    series Sum((2/3) to power n) = 2 HP.

    Bottom line - the army is more likely to win, but takes proportionately more
    damage.

    Finally, both units have the same chance of promotion, but the army will
    need to be promoted 3 times to reach 14 HP.

    --
    Daran

    The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
    English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
    on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
    unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:00:49 +0100 I <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in
    message <hiih42-a5k.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net>...

    > Mathematically, it's more complex. For example, compare a regular unit with
    > attack strength 12, with an army of four regular units each with attack
    > strength 4...

    I meant "attack strength 3. The calculations were done on this basis.

    --
    Daran

    The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
    English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
    on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
    unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Excellent presentation and conclusion. Just what I wanted. Thank you very
    much. So, I'll keep rounding up my obsolete legionaries and putting them
    into armies.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:33:25 -0400 barefoot_tom
    <barefoot_tom@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    <775edc47b9f5df580ef69564a72f3174@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com>...

    > Excellent presentation and conclusion. Just what I wanted. Thank you very
    > much...

    I should add that the conclusion applies only when the odds are in favour of
    the attacker. If the attacker is likely to lose, then a single unit is more
    likely to win than the corresponding army.

    > ...So, I'll keep rounding up my obsolete legionaries and putting them into
    > armies.

    I wouldn't. At 400 shields a pop, armies are worth far too much to waste on
    90 shields worth of ancient units. I build *one* army from my first GL,
    which I use to enable the Heroic Epic and Military Academy wonders. I use
    any further GLs to build small wonders. If I run out of wonders, then I
    build armies, but don't populate them until I've got more advanced units.
    Cavalry armies are great. Cavalry's great speed means that they don't
    really become obsolete until you have *modern* armor, and a four-move unit
    with attack-strength 4*6 is just great in the medieval period, and is never
    really obsolete.

    --
    Daran

    The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
    English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
    on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
    unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    > I think that 1.29f does help with the culture issue, by allowing
    > garrisons to suppress cultural transfer.
    >
    > However, you need *huge* garrisons. Two ground attack units (no
    > air, artillery sea, or non-attack units count) per alien citizen.
    > This is twice what you need to suppress resisters in a newly conquered
    > city.

    Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the unit, or
    will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have the same effect as
    Mechanised Infantry?

    --
    Graham Thurlwell.
    Jades' First Encounters Site.
    http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
    The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Graham Thurlwell" <jades@jades.org> wrote in message
    news:715d8d014d.jades@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...
    > On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> I think that 1.29f does help with the culture issue, by allowing
    >> garrisons to suppress cultural transfer.
    >>
    >> However, you need *huge* garrisons. Two ground attack units (no
    >> air, artillery sea, or non-attack units count) per alien citizen.
    >> This is twice what you need to suppress resisters in a newly conquered
    >> city.
    >
    > Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the unit, or
    > will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have the same effect as
    > Mechanised Infantry?

    Warriors are just as effective as modern armor.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    <jades@jades.org> wrote:

    >On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> I think that 1.29f does help with the culture issue, by allowing
    >> garrisons to suppress cultural transfer.
    >>
    >> However, you need *huge* garrisons. Two ground attack units (no
    >> air, artillery sea, or non-attack units count) per alien citizen.
    >> This is twice what you need to suppress resisters in a newly conquered
    >> city.
    >
    >Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the unit, or
    >will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have the same effect as
    >Mechanised Infantry?

    No, all that counts is the number of units. Ancient warriors are as
    good as any other unit. If you *need* garrisons in a hurry, get the
    cheapest units you can make.

    The alternative is *not* garrisoning the city, and letting it flip
    sides. If you're not at war, that means losing it until you go to
    war.

    Holding the city with a large garrison and putting in
    workers/settlers of your own people (up to the food limit) is the best
    way to secure a large city intact.

    Alternatively, starve the place, build workers out of it
    (rush-buying them), and otherwise reduce the population. Pre-conquest
    bombardment can work wonders to reduce the risk of conversion -- size
    one cities only need two units to garrison them.

    The *ultimate* solution is the hoof and mouth disease method. Wipe
    out the conquered civilization entirely. They can't flip back to the
    previous owner if the previous owner is exterminated. You needn't
    worry about garrisons either.

    --
    *-__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?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500 Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com>
    wrote in message <744ln01gpflafo0skqjekftsd9a24582e2@4ax.com>...

    > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    > <jades@jades.org> wrote:
    >
    > >On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    > Holding the city with a large garrison and putting in
    > workers/settlers of your own people (up to the food limit) is the best
    > way to secure a large city intact.

    Also rushbuild cultural wonders. The risk, of course, is that it flips
    anyway, and you lose your investment, but the chance of that is fairly
    small, and diminishes with every turn.

    > --
    > *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*

    --
    Daran

    The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
    English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
    on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
    unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:25:33 +0100, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500 Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com>
    >wrote in message <744ln01gpflafo0skqjekftsd9a24582e2@4ax.com>...
    >
    >> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    >> <jades@jades.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Holding the city with a large garrison and putting in
    >> workers/settlers of your own people (up to the food limit) is the best
    >> way to secure a large city intact.
    >
    >Also rushbuild cultural wonders. The risk, of course, is that it flips
    >anyway, and you lose your investment, but the chance of that is fairly
    >small, and diminishes with every turn.

    Right, do culture buildings right away. If you have junk units to
    disband, you can use them to reduce the cost. A Temple also makes the
    population happier, which is another factor in cultural flip -- cities
    which are unhappy or in disorder are more likely to change sides.


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

    On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:49:42 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:25:33 +0100, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500 Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com>
    >>wrote in message <744ln01gpflafo0skqjekftsd9a24582e2@4ax.com>...
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    >>> <jades@jades.org> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Holding the city with a large garrison and putting in
    >>> workers/settlers of your own people (up to the food limit) is the best
    >>> way to secure a large city intact.
    >>
    >>Also rushbuild cultural wonders. The risk, of course, is that it flips
    >>anyway, and you lose your investment, but the chance of that is fairly
    >>small, and diminishes with every turn.
    >
    > Right, do culture buildings right away. If you have junk units to
    >disband, you can use them to reduce the cost. A Temple also makes the
    >population happier, which is another factor in cultural flip -- cities
    >which are unhappy or in disorder are more likely to change sides.

    When I capture a city over seas or far from the capitol, I rush buy
    the Temple, Cathedral and Colloseum (sp). Most of the time, my
    captured cities sphere of cultural influence is only 8 squares (one on
    each side of the city) so it drops in size anyway. During the time it
    is dropping in size I may rush buy workers or settlers just to keep
    from losing the population. Later I can use them to build the city
    back to size. (or another city.)

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

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500, Jeffery S Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    ><jades@jades.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the unit, or
    >>will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have the same effect as
    >>Mechanised Infantry?
    >
    > No, all that counts is the number of units. Ancient warriors are as
    > good as any other unit. If you *need* garrisons in a hurry, get the
    > cheapest units you can make.

    About this - am I the only person who upgrades my units from ancient
    to as modern as they can be? I don't have dozens of anything to spare,
    and to me it seems cheaper to upgrade than to just let it sit idle
    doing little or nothing.???

    > The *ultimate* solution is the hoof and mouth disease method. Wipe
    > out the conquered civilization entirely. They can't flip back to the
    > previous owner if the previous owner is exterminated. You needn't
    > worry about garrisons either.

    Right, and the roads, irrigation, and all that are already prepared, so
    it grows pretty quickly. Helps if you have the pyramids on that continent,
    though.

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

    On 26 Oct 2004 15:44:55 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

    >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500, Jeffery S Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    >><jades@jades.org> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the unit, or
    >>>will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have the same effect as
    >>>Mechanised Infantry?
    >>
    >> No, all that counts is the number of units. Ancient warriors are as
    >> good as any other unit. If you *need* garrisons in a hurry, get the
    >> cheapest units you can make.
    >
    >About this - am I the only person who upgrades my units from ancient
    >to as modern as they can be? I don't have dozens of anything to spare,
    >and to me it seems cheaper to upgrade than to just let it sit idle
    >doing little or nothing.???

    Sometimes it is cheaper to upgrade. But what about if you don't
    need the military at all?

    In that case, it is even cheaper to disband the things, then build
    new ones later.

    Unless you have no shortage of gold income, and can support tons of
    units, there is a limit to the size of the force you can have. It
    *is* wise for it to be composed of the best things you can build,
    because maintenance is the same for all units.

    But if you must build new units quickly, going cheap can be a good
    plan. In the early game, for this reason, Warriors are excellent.
    The cost more to maintain, but as long as you're in a government with
    free support for those units, don't worry.


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

    Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in
    news:i04tn059k839nullqo6sm10asmu56fghqd@4ax.com:

    > On 26 Oct 2004 15:44:55 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500, Jeffery S Jones
    >><jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    >>><jades@jades.org> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the
    >>>>unit, or will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have
    >>>>the same effect as Mechanised Infantry?
    >>>
    >>> No, all that counts is the number of units. Ancient warriors
    >>> are as
    >>> good as any other unit. If you *need* garrisons in a hurry, get
    >>> the cheapest units you can make.
    >>
    >>About this - am I the only person who upgrades my units from
    >>ancient to as modern as they can be? I don't have dozens of
    >>anything to spare, and to me it seems cheaper to upgrade than to
    >>just let it sit idle doing little or nothing.???
    >
    > Sometimes it is cheaper to upgrade. But what about if you don't
    > need the military at all?
    >
    > In that case, it is even cheaper to disband the things, then
    > build
    > new ones later.
    >
    > Unless you have no shortage of gold income, and can support tons
    > of
    > units, there is a limit to the size of the force you can have.
    > It *is* wise for it to be composed of the best things you can
    > build, because maintenance is the same for all units.
    >
    > But if you must build new units quickly, going cheap can be a
    > good
    > plan. In the early game, for this reason, Warriors are excellent.
    > The cost more to maintain, but as long as you're in a government
    > with free support for those units, don't worry.

    I think it really depends on what you can afford more easily.
    Shields or gold. Also, any gold you spend on upgrades could have
    otherwise been used to help push up your science rate.

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

    On the 23 Oct 2004, "The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

    >
    > "Graham Thurlwell" <jades@jades.org> wrote in message
    > news:715d8d014d.jades@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...

    <snip>

    > > Does it take into acount the attack/defence strengths of the unit, or
    > > will obsolete stuff like Warriors or Longbowmen have the same effect as
    > > Mechanised Infantry?
    >
    > Warriors are just as effective as modern armor.

    Cool. At last, a reason to keep obsolete units in reserve. ;-)

    --
    Graham Thurlwell.
    Jades' First Encounters Site.
    http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
    The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On the 23 Oct 2004, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:

    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:06 -0500 Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com>
    > wrote in message <744ln01gpflafo0skqjekftsd9a24582e2@4ax.com>...
    >
    > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
    > > <jades@jades.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > >On the 19 Oct 2004, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Holding the city with a large garrison and putting in
    > > workers/settlers of your own people (up to the food limit) is the best
    > > way to secure a large city intact.
    >
    > Also rushbuild cultural wonders. The risk, of course, is that it flips
    > anyway, and you lose your investment, but the chance of that is fairly
    > small, and diminishes with every turn.

    Of course, if it's a fairly large city, you can't rush build while it's
    in Resistance (in Civ 3 1.29f, anyway).

    --
    Graham Thurlwell.
    Jades' First Encounters Site.
    http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
    The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:05:15 -0400, "barefoot_tom"
    <barefoot_tom@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Hi! I've enjoyed CIV3 for about 9 months now, but I keep getting frustrated
    >with cities deposing my rule and switching to the other side. There's no
    >warning, no unhappiness in the city, I've got huge garrisons in the city,
    >they just decide to switch. I usually start a new game when this happens.
    >I downloaded the patch (1.29f I think) and I thought the patch corrected
    >the problem, or at least gave me the option to prevent it from happening.
    >It is still happening. Is there an option that I haven't found to prevent
    >this? Please help...this is so stupid.

    There's a switch--cultural conversions.

    The reason it's happpening is that the other civ has more culture
    than you do, or the city is much closer to their capital than to
    yours. While it appears random it is not--only vulnerable cities can
    be flipped.

    >One other question: when I create an army out of 4 legionaries (each 3,3),
    >does this create a 12, 12 unit? IOW, when this army hits something, is it
    >hitting with an offensive power of 12 or an offensive power of 3? I use
    >the army to round up weak units and turn them into a powerful unit, but
    >I'm not sure I'm creating a tank out of a bunch of legionaries. Thanks!

    No. You still have a 3,3 unit, just with 4x the hitpoints.
    Very powerful in their own era, but they don't function very well into
    the next era.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games