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...
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
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?
Any point in Feudalism, Communism and Fascism do you think? Demoncracy
seems to work perfectly okay...
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?
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?
I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them right now! But any help
would be hugely appreciated, and thank you in advance!
Oh, and I've still not tried DyP yet! But hopefully one day! I think I'll
try to complete Civ on Monarchy, and when I do that, then DyP I do!
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.
>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.
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.
Exceptions -- flood plains produce enough food so that irrigation is
good, and any square which produces 3 or more base is worth irrigating
early.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.)
>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).
Keith
"Contro" <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote in message
news:cn7gsj$if7$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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...
>
> 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
>
> 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?
>
> Any point in Feudalism, Communism and Fascism do you think? Demoncracy seems to work perfectly okay...
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them right now! But any help would be hugely appreciated, and thank you in advance!
>
> Oh, and I've still not tried DyP yet! But hopefully one day! I think I'll try to complete Civ on Monarchy, and when I do that,
> then DyP I do!
>
> Contro.
>
>
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?
>
>> 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?
> 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.
>
>> 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
> 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?
>
>> 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!
>
>> 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!
>
> 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!
>
>> 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!
Keith wrote:
> Whats DyP, an update from a website?.
It's Double Your Pleasure. It's a mod made by fans, but a very detailed and
very good one by all accounts! There are lots and lots more to do, more
units, techs, government types, and civs (I think) but not silly things,
improvements that make sense and add to the game from what I've seen and
heard.
Another one is The Missing Links, but I don't know if that's any good, as no
one seems to mention that...
>
> Keith
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:cn7gsj$if7$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 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... 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 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? Any point in Feudalism,
>> Communism and Fascism do you think? Demoncracy seems to work perfectly
>> okay... 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? 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? I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of
>> them right now! But
>> any help would be hugely appreciated, and thank you in advance! Oh, and
>> I've still not tried DyP yet! But hopefully one day! I
>> think I'll try to complete Civ on Monarchy, and when I do that, then
>> DyP I do! Contro.
> 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.
>
Couthouse reduce corruption, so I usually rush buy one in captured cities.
(after temple)
Also communism has equal corruption everywhere, so it better for distant
cities.
"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:cn7gsj$if7$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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...
Well thats just totaly your decision. Only when your city stays on wealth
you should have as less shield as possible and as mutch food to stimmulate
growth. I always have a couple of city's around my (forbidden)palace that
have massive production later build a factory and a hoover dam there to
boost that by +-75%. when my city's reach 20,30 most of them will produce 20
to 30 shields (around my capitalls) offcourse there is a lot wasted due
corruption farther away in my country.
> 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
Well why...... probably caus sid had ordered a programmer to do that I think a despotisme isn't developed enough to make use of irigated land.
try find it in civilopedia or probably around the internet for despotisme.
BUT don't get me wrong... when you step over to monarchy or republic you
should have some squares at each decent city irigated.
> 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?
Well i used to play with manually.... but i have often like 30 workers...
and to set all those workers each turn is frustrating so i use automate. But
for roads and railroads that need to be made i just do some manual to speed
up the progress (else they make a maze of railroad and i want my first rail
be straight from back in country to the front.)
> Any point in Feudalism, Communism and Fascism do you think? Demoncracy
> seems to work perfectly okay...
Democrazy is the best if your not at war, if you have that universal
suffrage wonder you can also decently attack for a long time but after that
they still begin to whine about stop the war.
with communism you can make lotsa wars and keep taking enemy city's without
problems.
I don't have mutch experience with the other 2 but i beleve fascism can come
in handy at war also. you have lotsa pretty strong cheap units. and i
thought it's very hard to take over 1 of your city's. But again i don't have
mutch experience with this goverment.
> 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?
I think you seeing things a bit wrong here. If you take over a city it has
some agressors and some extra people that are unhappy becaus of war and
agression against mother country. so yes a bit less shields. also when
attack size of city goes down. also it's farther away from your cappitall so
more is lost to corruption. So in this case, yes you right it takes longer
to build stuff. But then again it's also the feeling, it takes same amount
of turns with 1 shield production to build a temple in a conquered city then
when you build your first. only turns take way longer.
> 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?
Well if you sneak attack yes other civils will be more offensive against you
(i think you can never win with diplomatic victory after that) But if you
just say they scum and say you wanna go to war then it's ok i think...
(maybe also a little anger but i don't think so)
> I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them right now! But any
help
> would be hugely appreciated, and thank you in advance!
Just practise i was playing my first civ game about 12 years ago....... and
i still find the 2 hardest settings unbeatable with fair playing and a fair
amount of races.
> Oh, and I've still not tried DyP yet! But hopefully one day! I think
I'll
> try to complete Civ on Monarchy, and when I do that, then DyP I do!
LOL... DyP???????
> Contro.
>
>
Greets and good luck with your conquests.
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).
>>> 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.
>> 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.
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).
>>> 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. 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).
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.
>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
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.
I always try to rush a temple, in order to get the cultural radius
up.
>> 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.
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.
>>> 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.
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 th
