Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (
More info?)
Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:53:27 -0000, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:51:45 -0000, "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi guys!
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if you remember me, but I was here a while back asking
>>>> a lot of questions, and getting a lot of useful help!
>>>>
>>>> Well, I finally managed to get around to playing a good game of
>>>> Civ, and have won on Regent difficulty! I won by miles in the end
>>>> too, it has to be said! It was the best and most convincing game
>>>> I've ever had! I think the main problem I had originally was just
>>>> trying to build my starting cities too far away from each other,
>>>> whereas if I had built them nearer, things would have all gone
>>>> great.
>>>>
>>>> But I do still have a few questions though
>>>>
>>>> How many shields, commerce, food, should each city be provided with
>>>> usually? Is there some sort of guide or way of knowing? I usually
>>>> just have the city govenor do it all, but well, just was interested
>>>> for when I tell my workers what to do...
>>>
>>> Before factories, you can expect to hit about one shield for each
>>> worker. More is possible in the right terrain. Higher food
>>> production - more irrigation rather than mining -- can cut into
>>> shields, but give you much more food, which makes that sort of city
>>> good for making settlers and workers.
>>
>> ahh, yes, I see. I guess as long as you have enough food to get
>> your city growing, you can do as much mining as you like then?
>
> Pretty much. It is a matter of which you want more, growth or
> production. Note that many cities are not going to grow past size 6,
> even though they have food enough to be much larger. It is better to
> mine around them, unless you can get aqueducts and make them grow that
> way. Even so, you can be better off doing mining first, then later on
> irrigating the mines for more food (and population).
>
ahh, I see. I guess need for growth increases, whilst shields is always
there, so best to concentrate more on that first.
>>>> When I last posted, some people mentioned that irrigating doesn't
>>>> really have an effect until you either get Republic or
>>>> Monarchy...why is this, as I couldn't see why this was the
>>>> case...probably me missing something obvious, but just wanted to be
>>>> sure
>>>
>>> When the food production prior to irrigating is two -- grasslands
>>> for example -- irrigation will not give any increase while in
>>> despotism. Despotism has a penalty of -1 from all production of
>>> tthree or more, and irrigation adds one food, which means that 2+1 =
>>> 3, the penalty kicks in and drops it back to 2.
>>
>> ahhh, yes, now I remember! Thanks you!
>>
>>>
>>> The other thing is that unless you're forced to settle in areas
>>> without grasslands, you don't need irrigation because the food
>>> production is high enough anyway.
>>>
>>
>> oh right! But is this always the case, or just at the start of the
>> game?
>
> Just in the early stages, before you switch to Monarchy or Republic.
> Once you're into the Middle Ages, or especially Industrial, you'll
> need the extra food in order to be competitive.
okay, great! I'll continue to not bother with irrigation until nearing or
reaching Republic/Monarchy then! Thanks for that, I understand it all now.
>
>>> Exceptions -- flood plains produce enough food so that irrigation
>>> is good, and any square which produces 3 or more base is worth
>>> irrigating early.
>>
>> Are flood plains good then? I always got the impression they were
>> bad....Also what is the deal with forests...are they worth chopping
>> down? i see that they seem to give 1 gold, but 1 less food, but if
>> you chop them down you get the shields. I guess it just depends on
>> how much gold you are getting for that city doesn't it? Food vs
>> shields again.
>
> Flood plains offer good food production, which is good in that
> cities based there can turn out workers and settlers easily. The
> disease there is a problem, but I find it a worthwhile tradeoff. Of
> course, usually if I have floodplains close to home, I have little
> choice about whether or not to build cities there -- I need the room.
>
so they have good and bad points. Well, like you say, i guess it's just one
of those things that if it's there, you just have to put up with. Can you
get rid of flood plains though, and if so, is it worth it?
> Forests aren't worth chopping down until the 10 shields you get is
> worth the effort. You'll need to replace the forest with a mine (to
> get more shields) or irrigation (if you need food), so you have to
> factor in that extra worker action (plus a road if you haven't built
> one yet).
>
> I look for a time when I'm building something which needs to come a
> lot faster, and which can be accelerated (wonders cannot be, shields
> from forests are wasted if you're building a wonder).
>
I didn't know that about them not helping wonders! But yes, I see what you
are saying. I'll leave them alone then until I need the shields for
something quick. It's not worth it for the worker effort by the looks of
it.
>>>> Automating workers...well at first I had them all manually done, as
>>>> was recommended last time, but when it came to the point where
>>>> railways needed to be implemented, and pollution started, I just
>>>> whacked them all on automated...was this wise?
>>>
>>> The AI can't use workers as efficiently as a human, so going on
>>> automation means you need more of them. OTOH, if you've done well
>>> you can produce enough to do everything you need, so it all comes
>>> down to just how efficient you need to be. I don't think that
>>> going on automation will cripple you -- but it can be harder to win
>>> on higher levels without every edge you can get.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I can imagine! What level do you play on? I'm not sure I will
>> ever play on higher than Monarch!!! well, we'll see if I can win on
>> that level first
>
> Monarch usually. Regent feels better in the early game, because the
> AI is playing using roughly the same productivity, but once I get
> going I can blow them away -- usually, I'm well ahead by the
> Industrial era, and often before.
Yes, I found this to be the case also! I won a space race victory before
the 1900's, which is very good for me!
Emperor, OTOH, requires me to play
> a very different way, and even with that, the AI's advantages
> including AI to AI cooperation make it feel unfair. I'd rather do
> Monarch with other disadvantages (starting position and map).
>
Yes, I heard previously in this group that Monarch was the level to play at
where it remained fun and didn't resort of having to do certain things a
certain way in order to win.
> This is unlike Civ2 where I eventually found Deity to be easy,
> though even there the playing methodology did change with the levels.
> But not so much as in Civ3 -- the biggest difference is the power of
> research. The AI is so much better at higher levels that you can't
> hope to beat them to it. The logical solution is to cancel research
> (or minimize it), and get gold to buy tech.
ahh, i see. I'll bear that in mind! Mind you, is this a bit of the case on
Monarch, or can you still hope to get your techs first?
>
>>> I don't like full automation, though, and usually set them to leave
>>> existing improvements unchanged. I tend to have some cities focused
>>> on shields, other on food, and don't want my mines/irrigation
>>> swapped.
>>
>> You can set the level of automation can you?! Where is that?
>
> In the advanced commands (C3C has that as an option in preferences
> to display on the menu, can't remember if the others do). You use the
> keyboard shortcuts to access them. There are a lot of orders which
> are issued this way, I tend to use the keyboard methods mostly.
>
Thanks, I'll look into this!
>>>> Any point in Feudalism, Communism and Fascism do you think?
>>>> Demoncracy seems to work perfectly okay...
>>>
>>> Each of the others has advantages in war, and for larger empires.
>>> If you aren't fighting wars, and don't need to control the entire
>>> world, Democracy is best.
>>>
>>> If you are at war, Republic can be a good choice. Conquests cuts
>>> into this advantage, making one of the above more competitive.
>>
>> Is it worth going into anarchy and all that just for the war? By
>> the time you've changed and everything, it might well be all over!
>
> Two ways make it worthwhile. First, you know you're going to be at
> war a while - 20+ turns. If you're Religious, this decision is a lot
> easier, because the period of Anarchy is shorter.
I didn't know that about religious civs, I have to admit. I don't usually
pick a civ for specific things, other than Rome because it's Red LOL But
they do have the legionary, which comes in handy.
>
>>>> When you take over a city, it usually takes it years to be able to
>>>> build anything...is there any way to get them to improve? Usually
>>>> I assume that building something to increase the cities cultural
>>>> influence will be a good move, then enabling it to get more
>>>> benefits from more squares, but it still takes ages to build this
>>>> improvement...is there a better way of going about things?
>>>
>>> Rush build things with money, if you can. If the reason you can't
>>> build is high corruption, there isn't a lot you can do about that,
>>> short of making the Forbidden Palace nearby.
>>
>> oh yes, rush building! I didn't think of that! Thanks! But yes,
>> corruption can be a pain. But I think it's usually just because the
>> city only has a 9 square culture radius. That's the impression I
>> get anyway!
>
> Corruption shows up as the percentage of shields/trade which is
> lost. If you have a lot of shields but only one or two are available,
> that is the sign of extreme corruption.
I'd probably know if I saw the game screen, but how do you know how many
shields are available compared to the ones you are producing? I know what
shows how much corruption you are receiving, and have always gone off that
to measure it, not anything to do with shields.
>
> You can build a courthouse and police station in order to reduce
> that, but neither is certain to give you much production. Note that
> corruption can exceed 100% in calculated value (there is a maximum
> effect, though, and in Conquests these two buildings affect that), so
> even if you knock it down some, it still can remain maxed.
>
How is it corruption can get so high? Is it purely because of the distance
from the capital, or are there other factors (as well as not having
buildings such as courthouses)?
> I always try to rush a temple, in order to get the cultural radius
> up.
>
I never knew a temple usually increased cultural radius, I always thought
the library was the first to do that! This will help out a lot! Is it
certain buildings that increase cultural radius, or is it there cultural
value seen in the civapedia?
>>> I tend to rush the temple, then library if I need culture or
>>> something else if it is more pressing (barracks if the city is a war
>>> center, walls if extra defense needed, harbor if trade net is
>>> needed, cathedral or colloseum if I need more happiness, etc.)
>>
>> The problem I usually find is that if I can afford to rush build
>> something, I usually don't need to do so, as I'm strong enough, but
>> if I do need to rush something, I can't afford it as I'm not strong
>> enough! You can't win!
>
> You need to get more money.
>
> If nothing else, drop your science in order to fund war spending
> like this. But you're better off trying to trade something for gold
> from the AI.
Yes, I could do with more...hmm, well I think it's also a thing of not
generating enough in the first place...spending too much on something or
other I think! Problem is that if I trade gold for techs, rather than techs
for techs, won't it put me behind technologically?
>
> If you are still at Despotism or in Communism, you can rush using
> citizens. This can be good, despite the unhappiness hit, because it
> reduces the enemy population in the city, making it easier to control.
> OTOH, you no longer can use excess gold to rush, and I find that a
> bigger downside as I dislike causing unhappiness at home in order to
> rush builds.
>
How long does the unhappiness last which is caused by forced labour rushes?
I think it would be handy earlier on, but as you say, later on causing
unhappiness could lead to problems. Although I'm not sure if that would
still be the same in Communism.
>>>> If you got to war with someone during any kind of agreement, such
>>>> as a trade agreement, will that count as breaking an agreement and
>>>> make the other civs hate you?
>>>
>>> Yes. I don't know if it is a horrible penalty, but you *don't*
>>> want to break Right of Passage by going to war (especially with
>>> units in their territory).
>>
>> Oh yes, That's one I try to avoid. even going to war while I'm in
>> another's territory I avoid. But I think last game I was in the
>> middle of a trade agreement (ivory for fur, that sort of one) and I
>> went to war, and I think it made all the other civs hate me from
>> then on! Although I think because I was the superpower made them a
>> little annoyed too, but I could live with that!
>
> It does break the trade, and the AI sets a marker to remember that
> you break trade deals. They dislike you, but it isn't as bad as
> breaking other treaties.
Yes, I thought as much. But it was odd, as the other civs hated me very
very much, and that is the only thing I did bad. Do they hate you more if
you are the superpower?
Oh, that reminds me, another question I have is that does your reason for
going to war matter? Do you have to demand something first to justify going
to war, or is it okay to just go to war, in the eyes of the other civs?
Thanks again for your help!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram