most effective worker strategy ?

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

I have read on this group some people stack workers together and use
them all at the same time instead of using one or two wrokers on a city
at one time.

I was just wondering what most people thought was the most effective
strategy ?. If you do stack them then how long do you spend imroving
the area around one city before moving on to the next ?.

Any help appreciated.

--
Eps
48 answers Last reply
More about most effective worker strategy
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "burchill" <burchill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:32bhlhF3jnrjkU1@individual.net...
    >I have read on this group some people stack workers together and use them
    >all at the same time instead of using one or two wrokers on a city at one
    >time.
    >
    > I was just wondering what most people thought was the most effective
    > strategy ?. If you do stack them then how long do you spend imroving the
    > area around one city before moving on to the next ?.

    Big stacks of workers are for later in the game. Early on, you want one or
    two per city developing your core and expanding the road network.

    The speed is proportional to how many workers are doing the same thing on
    the same tile. Two workers can get a job done in 1/2 the time. Three in 1/3
    the time... etc. There are rounding problems to consider however. So
    something that takes 6 turns can be done effectively with 2 or 3 workers but
    adding a 4th is wasteful because of the rounding.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:30:20 +0000, burchill <burchill@btinternet.com>
    wrote:

    >I have read on this group some people stack workers together and use
    >them all at the same time instead of using one or two wrokers on a city
    >at one time.
    >
    >I was just wondering what most people thought was the most effective
    >strategy ?. If you do stack them then how long do you spend imroving
    >the area around one city before moving on to the next ?.
    >

    Worker handling can get complicated. What I look at is what things
    need doing within the range of movement (in one turn) of the worker
    (or worker stack) that I'm on. I dislike wasting a worker turn moving
    the worker elsewhere, but I will do that if there is something high
    priority which is not nearby.

    Once I pick the task, I move the workers to do it. I do try to
    stack them, but that depends on getting them close enough to make the
    stack. Early in the game, each worker is near the city which made it,
    and it takes time to move them around, so they'll work separately.

    Once they get into a stack, I tend to leave them like that. But big
    stacks aren't so efficient either. If I have enough workers to get
    the job done in 2 turns, I need to double the stack to change that to
    one turn. If I don't have that many, I'll have them work on something
    else.

    Road building is a special situation for handling workers. On one
    turn, move enough workers into an unroaded square to complete the road
    in one turn (or two turns, if I can't get enough for one turn). Don't
    move more -- any other nearby workers can irrigate or mine. Next
    turn, some of those will be free to move onto the newly road-equipped
    square, and the road-making stack moves on to another unroaded square
    to repeat this process. Another option is to have another road-making
    stack, which moves through the newly made road square and on to the
    next unroaded square, creating a road by a leapfrog sort of process.

    But that could be considered a case of making a stack for road
    building only, and using other worker groups for other things. The
    thing is, road making takes longer on tougher terrain, and so needs
    more workers on the job in order to do it quickly, so a fixed size
    stack isn't ideal.

    Railroading is a similar process, except that as it is build on top
    of roads, the leapfrogging process doesn't require a delay of a turn
    in order to keep it going. With enough workers, you can complete any
    length of rails on top of an existing road net, with all the workers
    starting on the end point.


    The early game benefits most from efficient worker use. What you
    want to do with the workers is to improve those squares which are in
    use actively by your cities first. The only thing which is
    competitive with that is grabbing resource squares, even if the city
    won't use the square for a while, putting roads in. But until the
    city is ready to use it, you need not mine or irrigate those squares.

    The wonder race benefits from single high productivity cities. You
    get those by improving the city so it grows fast (irrigation) and has
    plenty of shields (mine). To maximize this, you need a lot of workers
    fixing up that city. If the city can grow above size 6, some of the
    workers should be added to the city to speed up its growth.

    This type of one-city rush focus isn't so important later on. The
    only exception would be a well placed Forbidden Palace city, created
    in an undeveloped but strategically useful position. Its lack of
    corruption would mean that production enhancements would be most
    effective there.

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

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:30:20 +0000, burchill <burchill@btinternet.com>
    wrote:

    >I have read on this group some people stack workers together and use
    >them all at the same time instead of using one or two wrokers on a city
    >at one time.
    >
    >I was just wondering what most people thought was the most effective
    >strategy ?. If you do stack them then how long do you spend imroving
    >the area around one city before moving on to the next ?.
    >
    >Any help appreciated.

    I don't stack workers until later in the game.

    Early on I try to get at least on worker going in each of my weaker
    cities. In the stronger inner cities I may move them around together
    since some cities grow faster than others. I always send them off to
    do different tasks though.

    In later years I start filling out the city. Ally my citizens are
    busy working so I can start mining mountains and clearing jungles. I
    might put anywhere from 2-6 workers on these tasks depending on my
    worker speed and how many I have free. For railroads I always use a
    stack so they get built in one or two turns. You can probably get two
    or more stacks going in a row to complete the railroad quicker.

    When using a stack you can try activate the worker again to find out
    how many turns it will take to finish. This will depend on your
    government type, whether the worker is a slave, whether you are at war
    with the slaves civ, your civ traits, and your tech tree level.
    Having something finish in one or two turns is often more efficient
    than doing it one. The exception may be pollution which has no value
    until you clear it.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in
    news:32bjkkF3k46i9U1@individual.net:

    >
    > "burchill" <burchill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
    > news:32bhlhF3jnrjkU1@individual.net...
    >>I have read on this group some people stack workers together and
    >>use them all at the same time instead of using one or two wrokers
    >>on a city at one time.
    >>
    >> I was just wondering what most people thought was the most
    >> effective strategy ?. If you do stack them then how long do you
    >> spend imroving the area around one city before moving on to the
    >> next ?.

    Once I have enough workers, I stack them enough to complete their
    job(s) in one turn. So different jobs need different size stacks. As
    for determining which tiles need to be worked, you should be working
    tiles that are currently in use and tiles that will soon be used.

    > Big stacks of workers are for later in the game. Early on, you
    > want one or two per city developing your core and expanding the
    > road network.
    >
    > The speed is proportional to how many workers are doing the same
    > thing on the same tile. Two workers can get a job done in 1/2 the
    > time. Three in 1/3 the time... etc. There are rounding problems to
    > consider however. So something that takes 6 turns can be done
    > effectively with 2 or 3 workers but adding a 4th is wasteful
    > because of the rounding.

    That's not true. A fourth worker will not get the work done any
    earlier, but it will free up some of the workers on the turn of
    completion. It's not usually worth it IMO, but definitely not useless.

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

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:30:20 +0000, burchill <burchill@btinternet.com>
    wrote:

    >I have read on this group some people stack workers together and use
    >them all at the same time instead of using one or two wrokers on a city
    >at one time.
    >
    >I was just wondering what most people thought was the most effective
    >strategy ?. If you do stack them then how long do you spend imroving
    >the area around one city before moving on to the next ?.
    >
    >Any help appreciated.


    I believe in producing lots of workers. I usually use the first one
    with the capital city only. It will be busy for a very long time.
    Then I make one or two that do nothing but link cities. then I
    produce at least one per city and after that I set them to automatic
    and leave them alone until all cells are road-covered, at which time I
    move them all to one corner of the empire and wait on railroads.


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:26:42 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:

    >I believe in producing lots of workers. I usually use the first one
    >with the capital city only. It will be busy for a very long time.
    >Then I make one or two that do nothing but link cities. then I
    >produce at least one per city and after that I set them to automatic
    >and leave them alone until all cells are road-covered, at which time I
    >move them all to one corner of the empire and wait on railroads.

    Geh. Auto-improve tends to be a bad move. While the AI doesn't do too
    horrible, it's far from the smartest with improvement strategies.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

    Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:29:35 -0800, Dark Tyger
    <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:

    >On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:26:42 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:
    >
    >>I believe in producing lots of workers. I usually use the first one
    >>with the capital city only. It will be busy for a very long time.
    >>Then I make one or two that do nothing but link cities. then I
    >>produce at least one per city and after that I set them to automatic
    >>and leave them alone until all cells are road-covered, at which time I
    >>move them all to one corner of the empire and wait on railroads.
    >
    >Geh. Auto-improve tends to be a bad move. While the AI doesn't do too
    >horrible, it's far from the smartest with improvement strategies.

    I sometimes micromanage a few workers, usually to connect cities and
    get certain luxuries and resources. When I have a lot of workers in
    one city restricted to that city only, a lot of work gets done pretty
    efficiently even without my managing them.


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:43:17 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:

    >>Geh. Auto-improve tends to be a bad move. While the AI doesn't do too
    >>horrible, it's far from the smartest with improvement strategies.
    >
    >I sometimes micromanage a few workers, usually to connect cities and
    >get certain luxuries and resources. When I have a lot of workers in
    >one city restricted to that city only, a lot of work gets done pretty
    >efficiently even without my managing them.

    It's not about the work getting done. It's about the -right- work
    getting done. The AI isn't really the smartest about figuring out
    which improvements make the best use of which tiles, nor what to build
    to help round out areas the city is lacking production. If you have a
    huge surplus of food, why not switch a few farms to mines where
    they're buildable, for example? You can "get by" fine without
    micromanaging, but micromanaging will make a big difference in the
    long run.

    --
    Dark Tyger

    Sympathy for the retailer:
    http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
    "Door's to your left" -Gord
    (I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

    Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:52:12 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:


    > Road building is a special situation for handling workers. On one
    >turn, move enough workers into an unroaded square to complete the road
    >in one turn (or two turns, if I can't get enough for one turn). Don't
    >move more -- any other nearby workers can irrigate or mine. Next
    >turn, some of those will be free to move onto the newly road-equipped
    >square, and the road-making stack moves on to another unroaded square
    >to repeat this process. Another option is to have another road-making
    >stack, which moves through the newly made road square and on to the
    >next unroaded square, creating a road by a leapfrog sort of process.
    >
    > But that could be considered a case of making a stack for road
    >building only, and using other worker groups for other things. The
    >thing is, road making takes longer on tougher terrain, and so needs
    >more workers on the job in order to do it quickly, so a fixed size
    >stack isn't ideal.
    >
    > Railroading is a similar process, except that as it is build on top
    >of roads, the leapfrogging process doesn't require a delay of a turn
    >in order to keep it going. With enough workers, you can complete any
    >length of rails on top of an existing road net, with all the workers
    >starting on the end point.

    Hearing you talk about road building made me realize I use different
    strategies for building railroads. Often at about the time of
    steampower I will build a worker or two from all size 12 cities.

    If I am at threat of war I will quickly lay a criss cross railroad
    pattern. The idea being to get Calvary to all edges of my civ as
    quick as possible. This is a high priority and I may assign 6-15
    workers to accomplish this task. I might occasionally skip over
    hills and mountains to speed the process. If I freshly conquered a
    civ this is important because the AI will probably attack there first.

    If I am near to building wonder I will quickly railroad my most
    productive city. There are some very good wonders like Hoover Dam and
    Theory of Evolution. If I can railroad all the mines and get those
    wonders it get vastly improve my civ. I will move as many workers
    necessary to complete this by the early stages of building the wonder.
    I found getting shields early in the building works best.

    If I freshly conquered a civ I will get working building those up.

    If none of the above I will evenly spread out workers through my
    cities working mines first. Then eventually begin to connect the
    cities. Once I research replaceable parts it will all come together
    anyway.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:29:35 -0800, Dark Tyger
    <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote:

    >On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:26:42 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:
    >
    >>I believe in producing lots of workers. I usually use the first one
    >>with the capital city only. It will be busy for a very long time.
    >>Then I make one or two that do nothing but link cities. then I
    >>produce at least one per city and after that I set them to automatic
    >>and leave them alone until all cells are road-covered, at which time I
    >>move them all to one corner of the empire and wait on railroads.
    >
    >Geh. Auto-improve tends to be a bad move. While the AI doesn't do too
    >horrible, it's far from the smartest with improvement strategies.

    Whenever I take an AI city I always have to redo all the terrain. I
    have seen cities where every grassland square was irrigated.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:hji1s0tlvago0a2081nco9ch1kugoddihp@4ax.com...

    > The wonder race benefits from single high productivity cities. You
    > get those by improving the city so it grows fast (irrigation) and has
    > plenty of shields (mine). To maximize this, you need a lot of workers
    > fixing up that city. If the city can grow above size 6, some of the
    > workers should be added to the city to speed up its growth.
    >
    > This type of one-city rush focus isn't so important later on.

    Oh, yes, it is. I routinely do such things to rush JSBC and ToE.
    As a amtter of fact after I acquire steam power my next priority
    becomes ToE at any cost. Usually a doezen of workers serves
    a single city building ToE.

    Virtually in all my games (Deity) ToE serves as a point of no return,
    that is where I make a run away. My philosopy is to keep low profile
    until a certain moment in the game. AI does not bother to attack someone
    who is not percieved as threat. For that reason it is a good idea to make
    a quick "run-away" before which you are sitting quietly in the bottom part
    of power graph and after which you are the undisputed world leader.
    Before that nobody wants to attack you, after that nobody dares.

    In my case (Americans) this run-away phase usually begins from steam
    power, through sanitation (I inetionally plase my cities sparsely to
    get maximum effect), ToE, Hoover Dam and culminates in golden age
    triggerd by F15 or SETI. ToE serves as a detonator, all my workers
    must go help there. The resulting explosion of power is just azmaing.


    > The
    > only exception would be a well placed Forbidden Palace city, created
    > in an undeveloped but strategically useful position. Its lack of
    > corruption would mean that production enhancements would be most
    > effective there.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 03:06:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:hji1s0tlvago0a2081nco9ch1kugoddihp@4ax.com...
    >
    >> The wonder race benefits from single high productivity cities. You
    >> get those by improving the city so it grows fast (irrigation) and has
    >> plenty of shields (mine). To maximize this, you need a lot of workers
    >> fixing up that city. If the city can grow above size 6, some of the
    >> workers should be added to the city to speed up its growth.
    >>
    >> This type of one-city rush focus isn't so important later on.
    >
    >Oh, yes, it is. I routinely do such things to rush JSBC and ToE.
    >As a amtter of fact after I acquire steam power my next priority
    >becomes ToE at any cost. Usually a doezen of workers serves
    >a single city building ToE.

    By the time those wonders come around, I should already have a size
    12+ city which has maximized development. I don't need to focus
    workers on improving just one city.

    The introduction of railroads kind of works like that, but mostly,
    the workers are already somewhere near the core cities, so it makes
    sense to put in the railroads around them first. But it is putting in
    rails, not emphasing production for a wonder, which is the important
    thing.


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

    "Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:lf42s0dpisatqv557ci4ovdoikls3i5vp9@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 03:06:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:hji1s0tlvago0a2081nco9ch1kugoddihp@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >> The wonder race benefits from single high productivity cities. You
    > >> get those by improving the city so it grows fast (irrigation) and has
    > >> plenty of shields (mine). To maximize this, you need a lot of workers
    > >> fixing up that city. If the city can grow above size 6, some of the
    > >> workers should be added to the city to speed up its growth.
    > >>
    > >> This type of one-city rush focus isn't so important later on.
    > >
    > >Oh, yes, it is. I routinely do such things to rush JSBC and ToE.
    > >As a amtter of fact after I acquire steam power my next priority
    > >becomes ToE at any cost. Usually a doezen of workers serves
    > >a single city building ToE.
    >
    > By the time those wonders come around, I should already have a size
    > 12+ city which has maximized development. I don't need to focus
    > workers on improving just one city.
    >
    > The introduction of railroads kind of works like that, but mostly,
    > the workers are already somewhere near the core cities, so it makes
    > sense to put in the railroads around them first. But it is putting in
    > rails, not emphasing production for a wonder, which is the important
    > thing.

    I am talking about yhe situation when WoW race is real, 1-2 turns make a
    difference. As I explained, ToE makes a big difference in my game,
    everything is uncertain, often including many Universal Suffrages
    in progress.

    In 60% of my games Scientific method is not my own, comes from someone
    through rtade or theft. In such situations railroading is not enough,
    I mine everything, let the city starve. As I explained, ToE is a detonator
    worth roughly 25,000 gold for me and world leadership in the nearest future.

    But, then again, there are different approaches. After all my point
    coincided with yours: worker rules.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:03:21 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
    wrote:

    >I am talking about yhe situation when WoW race is real, 1-2 turns make a
    >difference. As I explained, ToE makes a big difference in my game,
    >everything is uncertain, often including many Universal Suffrages
    >in progress.
    >
    >In 60% of my games Scientific method is not my own, comes from someone
    >through rtade or theft. In such situations railroading is not enough,
    >I mine everything, let the city starve. As I explained, ToE is a detonator
    >worth roughly 25,000 gold for me and world leadership in the nearest future.
    >
    >But, then again, there are different approaches. After all my point
    >coincided with yours: worker rules.

    I use the Theory of Evolution to get me to the Hoover Dam before
    anyone else. I always need to worry about the AI switching from
    another wonder to the one you want and completing in one turn.

    I also use a high productive city to build small wonders and armies.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    >
    > >I am talking about yhe situation when WoW race is real, 1-2 turns make a
    > >difference. As I explained, ToE makes a big difference in my game,
    > >everything is uncertain, often including many Universal Suffrages
    > >in progress.
    > >
    > >In 60% of my games Scientific method is not my own, comes from someone
    > >through rtade or theft. In such situations railroading is not enough,
    > >I mine everything, let the city starve. As I explained, ToE is a detonator
    > >worth roughly 25,000 gold for me and world leadership in the nearest future.
    > >
    > >But, then again, there are different approaches. After all my point
    > >coincided with yours: worker rules.
    >
    > I use the Theory of Evolution to get me to the Hoover Dam before
    > anyone else. I always need to worry about the AI switching from
    > another wonder to the one you want and completing in one turn.
    >
    > I also use a high productive city to build small wonders and armies.

    Dear P12,
    Please leave that level. I admire your posts in this c3 NG, just move
    to Deity/Sid. Deity is easy in this current implementation, try Sid.
    I am not kidding, the joy increases enormously.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:36:44 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
    wrote:

    >Dear P12,
    > Please leave that level. I admire your posts in this c3 NG, just move
    > to Deity/Sid. Deity is easy in this current implementation, try Sid.
    > I am not kidding, the joy increases enormously.

    When I tried moving up I didn't like it. The AI was constantly
    declaring war on me. I did win but I can't say I enjoyed it. When I
    went to go build my first city beside the capitol Germany declared war
    on me. That was in PTW on Emperor which was I think the second
    highest level. I think I tried a higher level on Conquest once and my
    neighbors already had like 5 cities before I could build one. I could
    try adjusting the aggression level but I don't feel I should have too.
    Right now I play Monarch which I have never lost at but I enjoy
    playing it.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message news:b3b2s0dcm4ju7gdvc0b3be8jf6gn9gqbiu@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:36:44 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Dear P12,
    > > Please leave that level. I admire your posts in this c3 NG, just move
    > > to Deity/Sid. Deity is easy in this current implementation, try Sid.
    > > I am not kidding, the joy increases enormously.
    >
    > When I tried moving up I didn't like it. The AI was constantly
    > declaring war on me. I did win but I can't say I enjoyed it. When I
    > went to go build my first city beside the capitol Germany declared war
    > on me.

    Germany is a singular case. I lose when Germany is next to me.

    > That was in PTW on Emperor which was I think the second
    > highest level. I think I tried a higher level on Conquest once and my
    > neighbors already had like 5 cities before I could build one. I could
    > try adjusting the aggression level but I don't feel I should have too.

    You do not have to. Agression level is not only against you...

    > Right now I play Monarch which I have never lost at but I enjoy
    > playing it.

    I hate to say it, but what I meant is really what I did. Try a couple
    of levels above Monarch. Mind you, me was very uncomfortable too.
    Just give it a try, You'll see the difference between "the game" and
    "the Machiavellian game". You know the game, P12, it will work out.
    I really mean you'll rejoice. Daran explained the basics to me right
    here in a.g.c.3., I want to share the joy with the rest of you guys.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in
    news:hji1s0tlvago0a2081nco9ch1kugoddihp@4ax.com:

    [snip]
    > The wonder race benefits from single high productivity cities.
    > You
    > get those by improving the city so it grows fast (irrigation) and
    > has plenty of shields (mine). To maximize this, you need a lot of
    > workers fixing up that city. If the city can grow above size 6,
    > some of the workers should be added to the city to speed up its
    > growth.

    This is an important and probably overlooked purpose for workers.
    After size 7, city growth costs more food. So it often better to have
    a worker/settler factory which can supply population to your other
    cities.
    When possible I try to plan the 12 tiles I will be using for a city
    and once they are improved, then the worker(s) can join the city.
    Since it will be stuck at size 12 for a while anyways, there is little
    point in improving more tiles at that moment.
    You save on gold, get more productive cities faster, and so long as
    you use the opportunity to get yourself some slave labor you don't have
    to lose anything.

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

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:15:40 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

    >> Railroading is a similar process, except that as it is build on top
    >>of roads, the leapfrogging process doesn't require a delay of a turn
    >>in order to keep it going. With enough workers, you can complete any
    >>length of rails on top of an existing road net, with all the workers
    >>starting on the end point.

    ....or anywhere along the path.

    > If I am at threat of war I will quickly lay a criss cross railroad
    > pattern. The idea being to get Calvary to all edges of my civ as
    > quick as possible. This is a high priority and I may assign 6-15
    > workers to accomplish this task.

    Ah, but you don't need a criss-cross, you just need a central railroad
    along the longish-axis of your country, and then spurs off to each of the
    towns from that. Once you have that, _then_ add a second path between the
    ends of the spurs if you want, but that's not really necessary.

    Mountains can be avoided almost always doing this.

    > I might occasionally skip over
    > hills and mountains to speed the process. If I freshly conquered a
    > civ this is important because the AI will probably attack there first.

    OK, but with roads and a decent rail system, you can get close to the
    spot by rail, and the last couple moves by road and still get anywhere
    in one turn, yes? If you're reacting to an invasion, that's going to
    get your defenses where they need to be. More RR than that is nice,
    but it's not necessary for defensive or other troop-moving purposes.

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

    In article <ctj1s0tufrv06in8b1gtjmjih0otgb7ruc@4ax.com>, nowhere@all.com
    says...
    >
    > I don't stack workers until later in the game.
    >

    I stack workers a lot. However, while I know how to move a lot of
    workers as a stack, I haven't figured out how to give a command (say
    'clear jungle') to a stack of 16 workers. Doing it manually, if you're
    just rolling across the Congo, is RSI material (and I eventually give up
    and allocate a whole lot of the little guys to do it automatically
    <shift-W> , after I get 'replacable parts').

    But in the back of my mind I have this idea that I was able to issue a
    single command to a stack of workers; that I've just forgotten how ...
    <sigh>

    I play Conquests, b.t.w.

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

    On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:49:52 +1300, Peter Huebner
    <no.one@this.address> wrote:

    >In article <ctj1s0tufrv06in8b1gtjmjih0otgb7ruc@4ax.com>, nowhere@all.com
    >says...
    >>
    >> I don't stack workers until later in the game.
    >>
    >
    >I stack workers a lot. However, while I know how to move a lot of
    >workers as a stack, I haven't figured out how to give a command (say
    >'clear jungle') to a stack of 16 workers. Doing it manually, if you're
    >just rolling across the Congo, is RSI material (and I eventually give up
    >and allocate a whole lot of the little guys to do it automatically
    ><shift-W> , after I get 'replacable parts').
    >
    >But in the back of my mind I have this idea that I was able to issue a
    >single command to a stack of workers; that I've just forgotten how ...
    ><sigh>
    >
    >I play Conquests, b.t.w.

    I wish I could issue mass orders. But you can't. There is no
    group-order other than the move-stack orders.

    No all-stack attack.

    No all-stack bombard. The auto-bombard thing is nice, but it is
    simply a "repeat attack each turn" command, not a stack command (and
    it won't work if you have units set to cancel orders for an enemy, if
    there are any enemy units adjacent to the artillery).

    And of course, no stack commands for workers.
    --
    *-__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 message
    news:e6s6s09g5dvb5egi1joq44hka3nljgj88r@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:49:52 +1300,,

    <snip>

    > I wish I could issue mass orders. But you can't. There is no
    > group-order other than the move-stack orders.
    >
    > No all-stack attack.
    >
    Actually there is an all stack attack. It's the same advanced button you
    use to move the stack, just use it to attack. It works in the following
    way. Select a unit in your stack. Decide if you want only a certain type
    of unit or all to attack. Press the corresponding advanced button (located
    above the info box). Drag the movement line to where you want to attack.
    Then the chosen units will attack one by one. If the enemy is killed off in
    that square then all units that have not yet attacked will move to that
    square.

    One side note on this technique, not all units in the stack will have a
    visible animation. You will see the enemy units defending, but none of your
    units appear to attack. Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    however.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    >news:e6s6s09g5dvb5egi1joq44hka3nljgj88r@4ax.com...
    >> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:49:52 +1300,,
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> I wish I could issue mass orders. But you can't. There is no
    >> group-order other than the move-stack orders.
    >>
    >> No all-stack attack.
    >>
    >Actually there is an all stack attack. It's the same advanced button you
    >use to move the stack, just use it to attack. It works in the following
    >way. Select a unit in your stack. Decide if you want only a certain type
    >of unit or all to attack. Press the corresponding advanced button (located
    >above the info box). Drag the movement line to where you want to attack.
    >Then the chosen units will attack one by one. If the enemy is killed off in
    >that square then all units that have not yet attacked will move to that
    >square.
    >
    >One side note on this technique, not all units in the stack will have a
    >visible animation. You will see the enemy units defending, but none of your
    >units appear to attack. Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    >however.

    I didn't know you could do that. I'll need to try it.


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

    > > Right now I play Monarch which I have never lost at but I enjoy
    > > playing it.
    >
    > I hate to say it, but what I meant is really what I did. Try a couple
    > of levels above Monarch. Mind you, me was very uncomfortable too.
    > Just give it a try, You'll see the difference between "the game" and
    > "the Machiavellian game". You know the game, P12, it will work out.
    > I really mean you'll rejoice. Daran explained the basics to me right
    > here in a.g.c.3., I want to share the joy with the rest of you guys.

    monarch is also the level im "stuck" on, if i get a good start i normaly
    always win. If i get an average start, its a good fight to catch up and win.
    Bad starts = starting next to aztecs, zulus arabs or germans and dying
    within 10 turns

    Tried Empire level is next to imposible to get into the AD's for me, dont
    know why.

    --
    From Adam Webb, Overlag
    www.tacticalgamer.com
    CS:SOURCE server now active :D


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.817 / Virus Database: 555 - Release Date: 16/12/2004
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in
    news:i4q8s09h23p9ucoqdtjg285jq7qmrsc9k6@4ax.com:

    > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    > <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    >>news:e6s6s09g5dvb5egi1joq44hka3nljgj88r@4ax.com...
    >>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:49:52 +1300,,
    >>
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>> I wish I could issue mass orders. But you can't. There is no
    >>> group-order other than the move-stack orders.
    >>>
    >>> No all-stack attack.
    >>>
    >>Actually there is an all stack attack. It's the same advanced
    >>button you use to move the stack, just use it to attack. It works
    >>in the following way. Select a unit in your stack. Decide if you
    >>want only a certain type of unit or all to attack. Press the
    >>corresponding advanced button (located above the info box). Drag
    >>the movement line to where you want to attack. Then the chosen
    >>units will attack one by one. If the enemy is killed off in that
    >>square then all units that have not yet attacked will move to that
    >>square.
    >>
    >>One side note on this technique, not all units in the stack will
    >>have a visible animation. You will see the enemy units defending,
    >>but none of your units appear to attack. Could be limited to my
    >>now "lower end" system however.
    >
    > I didn't know you could do that. I'll need to try it.

    I think it only has a 1 turn range. You can do the same to load a
    transport offshore IIRC.

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

    "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95C46C9D3B0B0kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
    > Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in
    > news:i4q8s09h23p9ucoqdtjg285jq7qmrsc9k6@4ax.com:
    >
    > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    > > <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
    > >>news:e6s6s09g5dvb5egi1joq44hka3nljgj88r@4ax.com...
    > >>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:49:52 +1300,,
    > >>
    > >><snip>
    > >>
    > >>> I wish I could issue mass orders. But you can't. There is no
    > >>> group-order other than the move-stack orders.
    > >>>
    > >>> No all-stack attack.
    > >>>
    > >>Actually there is an all stack attack. It's the same advanced
    > >>button you use to move the stack, just use it to attack. It works
    > >>in the following way. Select a unit in your stack. Decide if you
    > >>want only a certain type of unit or all to attack. Press the
    > >>corresponding advanced button (located above the info box). Drag
    > >>the movement line to where you want to attack. Then the chosen
    > >>units will attack one by one. If the enemy is killed off in that
    > >>square then all units that have not yet attacked will move to that
    > >>square.
    > >>
    > >>One side note on this technique, not all units in the stack will
    > >>have a visible animation. You will see the enemy units defending,
    > >>but none of your units appear to attack. Could be limited to my
    > >>now "lower end" system however.
    > >
    > > I didn't know you could do that. I'll need to try it.
    >
    > I think it only has a 1 turn range. You can do the same to load a
    > transport offshore IIRC.

    Yes, you do have to move the attacking units into an adjacent square before
    you can make the stack attack...
    It does not work with bombard units though...
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:54:21 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:49:52 +1300, Peter Huebner
    ><no.one@this.address> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <ctj1s0tufrv06in8b1gtjmjih0otgb7ruc@4ax.com>, nowhere@all.com
    >>says...
    >>>
    >>> I don't stack workers until later in the game.
    >>>
    >>
    >>I stack workers a lot. However, while I know how to move a lot of
    >>workers as a stack, I haven't figured out how to give a command (say
    >>'clear jungle') to a stack of 16 workers. Doing it manually, if you're
    >>just rolling across the Congo, is RSI material (and I eventually give up
    >>and allocate a whole lot of the little guys to do it automatically
    >><shift-W> , after I get 'replacable parts').
    >>
    >>But in the back of my mind I have this idea that I was able to issue a
    >>single command to a stack of workers; that I've just forgotten how ...
    >><sigh>
    >>
    >>I play Conquests, b.t.w.
    >
    > I wish I could issue mass orders. But you can't. There is no
    >group-order other than the move-stack orders.
    >
    > No all-stack attack.
    >
    > No all-stack bombard. The auto-bombard thing is nice, but it is
    >simply a "repeat attack each turn" command, not a stack command (and
    >it won't work if you have units set to cancel orders for an enemy, if
    >there are any enemy units adjacent to the artillery).
    >
    > And of course, no stack commands for workers.


    A friend of mine stacks his workers in fours. Then he mass moves them
    to the square he wishes to work, issues the command to each one until
    either all are working or the task is complete. If there are any left
    over after the square is worked, they are 'end-turn' so the four stay
    together. The process repeats. This is how he creates RRs too. He
    says it is much work to tell them all where to go when there is a lot
    of them.


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:54:21 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
    <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    >No all-stack bombard.


    That would be a great improvement

    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    >Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    >however.

    How long does it take for an upper end system to become a lower end
    system?
    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:38:56 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:

    >How long does it take for an upper end system to become a lower end
    >system?


    One maintenance upgrade.
    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On 19 Dec 2004 15:40:16 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:

    > I think it only has a 1 turn range. You can do the same to load a
    >transport offshore IIRC.


    Yes, but not if the transport is in the city.


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Buck <iam@this.site> wrote in
    news:9isds0h4kth6l2ivlrhvuc5khj8qgtlu9g@4ax.com:

    > On 19 Dec 2004 15:40:16 GMT, "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster"
    > <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I think it only has a 1 turn range. You can do the same to load a
    >>transport offshore IIRC.
    >
    >
    > Yes, but not if the transport is in the city.

    Hence the word, "offshore".

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

    On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:38:56 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    ><tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    >>however.
    >
    > How long does it take for an upper end system to become a lower end
    > system?

    Windows, about 2 years. Mac, around 3.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Buck" <iam@this.site> wrote in message
    news:qfsds0l4rv0t90htihl2oipg523ddo4t61@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    > <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    > >however.
    >
    > How long does it take for an upper end system to become a lower end
    > system?

    About 2 minutes off the assembly line :)
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In article <qfsds0l4rv0t90htihl2oipg523ddo4t61@4ax.com>, iam@this.site
    says...
    > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    > <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    > >however.
    >
    > How long does it take for an upper end system to become a lower end
    > system?
    > Buck

    I recently serviced and upgraded (ram) the computer of our local garage.
    It's an ISA only P75 system :-) 12 years old?!? Still does their
    accounts just fine.

    tee hee -Peter
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    computers have not really improved over the past year and a half. A top end
    A643200 last oct is still a dam good computer and not much slower than whats
    out now.

    Graphics cards however......

    --
    From Adam Webb, Overlag
    www.tacticalgamer.com
    CS:SOURCE server now active :D

    "Buck" <iam@this.site> wrote in message
    news:qfsds0l4rv0t90htihl2oipg523ddo4t61@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:35:55 GMT, "Tzar Sasha"
    > <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Could be limited to my now "lower end" system
    > >however.
    >
    > How long does it take for an upper end system to become a lower end
    > system?
    > Buck
    > --
    > For what it's worth.
    >


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.820 / Virus Database: 558 - Release Date: 20/12/2004
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In article <e6s6s09g5dvb5egi1joq44hka3nljgj88r@4ax.com>,
    Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

    > And of course, no stack commands for workers.

    The one I always found myself craving was a "free up all workers"
    command the moment I get Steam Engine and have coal and want to railroad
    my most productive city to buid Theory of Evolution and Hoover Dam and
    then connect all my cities in quick order. Having to chase down a bunch
    of workers and clicking on all of them to arrest their current task is
    wearisome. Similarly, once railroaded, I have often wished for an
    "activate all calvary" command which I want to employ in a little "job".
    They may be spread all over my cities, but I want to gather them all up
    actively. These simple commands would save so much time. The worst of
    all is this one:

    I always build a big stack of artillery for defending against massive
    stacks of infantry and ships bombardment, etc. in the modern era. I HATE
    having to click on 20-30 artillery I normally have fortified somewhere
    or all over even to get them active and together. If I have leftover
    unused artillery with no more targets after a turn, I have to put them
    back to sleep or pass pass pass pass on the turn.

    A great improvement in Civ 4 would be some simple powerful group command
    abilities: find and select all of my X type units and do X with them
    (move them here, activate them, fortify them, upgrade them (this one is
    possible), disband them). I have wanted to do this SO many times and
    have wasted vast amounts of gameplaying time because I could not do this
    one simple kind of move. I think this would have to be my number one
    request for gameplay improvement for Civ 4.

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

    On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:30:06 GMT, DigitalXS <spamshredder@verizon.net>
    wrote:

    >I always build a big stack of artillery for defending against massive
    >stacks of infantry and ships bombardment, etc. in the modern era. I HATE
    >having to click on 20-30 artillery I normally have fortified somewhere
    >or all over even to get them active and together. If I have leftover
    >unused artillery with no more targets after a turn, I have to put them
    >back to sleep or pass pass pass pass on the turn.


    Lucky you, I find when the enemy bombards my cities, they move out of
    range of the city, then on the turn, move in one at the time and
    bombard. However, I get your drift. Once I have RR, I connect all
    cities as quickly as possible and then turn the workers loose to build
    whatever where ever they want. Then I stack my Artillery and each
    different type military together (each type on it's own tile). (I
    leave three defenders in every coastal city and at least one in each
    inner city). Then I build up a group of about ten or twenty
    defenders. The defenders are moved into any city perceived to be at
    risk. Artillery is moved bulk to a city or cell from which to attack
    and do their bombard. The remainder are moved back inland and
    fortified with one or more defenders until needed again. Same with
    attackers. I keep them stacked up in stacks of 25 until needed.

    When I move armillary, I move the entire stack into a city, make the
    attack and move the rest out. Then with only one command, I can group
    park them with one of the sleep commands.

    In case you haven't noticed, I take war seriously. :)

    I play against the AI so your strategy may differ with human
    opponents.

    Your wishes and mine are in synch. I, like you, would very much like
    to pull all my whatevers together to a single cell so I can either use
    them, upgrade them or load them. When I get airports, things are a
    bit different as I move them as they are built to where they are
    needed at the time.


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:30:06 GMT, DigitalXS <spamshredder@verizon.net>
    wrote:

    >In article <e6s6s09g5dvb5egi1joq44hka3nljgj88r@4ax.com>,
    > Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
    >
    >> And of course, no stack commands for workers.
    >
    >The one I always found myself craving was a "free up all workers"
    >command the moment I get Steam Engine and have coal and want to railroad
    >my most productive city to buid Theory of Evolution and Hoover Dam and
    >then connect all my cities in quick order. Having to chase down a bunch
    >of workers and clicking on all of them to arrest their current task is
    >wearisome. Similarly, once railroaded, I have often wished for an
    >"activate all calvary" command which I want to employ in a little "job".
    >They may be spread all over my cities, but I want to gather them all up
    >actively. These simple commands would save so much time. The worst of
    >all is this one:
    >
    >I always build a big stack of artillery for defending against massive
    >stacks of infantry and ships bombardment, etc. in the modern era. I HATE
    >having to click on 20-30 artillery I normally have fortified somewhere
    >or all over even to get them active and together. If I have leftover
    >unused artillery with no more targets after a turn, I have to put them
    >back to sleep or pass pass pass pass on the turn.
    >
    >A great improvement in Civ 4 would be some simple powerful group command
    >abilities: find and select all of my X type units and do X with them
    >(move them here, activate them, fortify them, upgrade them (this one is
    >possible), disband them). I have wanted to do this SO many times and
    >have wasted vast amounts of gameplaying time because I could not do this
    >one simple kind of move. I think this would have to be my number one
    >request for gameplay improvement for Civ 4.
    >
    >Doug

    I would love to have a command to wake all units of a certain type. I
    often don't fortify units because it is too much of a hassle to go
    around the map and find them all. But that often takes up time
    passing on each turn for all those units.

    I would also like to tell a stack of works to clear a jungle or clean
    pollution.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    DigitalXS <spamshredder@verizon.net> wrote in
    news:spamshredder-9D7885.21300608012005@news.gte.net:

    [snip]
    >
    > A great improvement in Civ 4 would be some simple powerful group
    > command

    Yes, CIV definitely needs grouping commands. Something the does not
    give a combat advantage (like the Army) but can be used freely in order
    to minimize micromanagement.


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

    < cut >

    > A great improvement in Civ 4 would be some simple powerful group command
    > abilities: find and select all of my X type units and do X with them
    > (move them here, activate them, fortify them, upgrade them (this one is
    > possible), disband them). I have wanted to do this SO many times and
    > have wasted vast amounts of gameplaying time because I could not do this
    > one simple kind of move. I think this would have to be my number one
    > request for gameplay improvement for Civ 4.
    >
    > Doug

    I do like your idea!

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

    "Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
    news:0neEd.23120$H%6.926038@twister1.libero.it...
    > < cut >
    >
    >> A great improvement in Civ 4 would be some simple powerful group command
    >> abilities: find and select all of my X type units and do X with them
    >> (move them here, activate them, fortify them, upgrade them (this one is
    >> possible), disband them). I have wanted to do this SO many times and
    >> have wasted vast amounts of gameplaying time because I could not do this
    >> one simple kind of move. I think this would have to be my number one
    >> request for gameplay improvement for Civ 4.

    Especially for workers so that you can order a whole stack of the to perform
    one task. These 24 workers built a railroad from here to there rather than
    the present cumbersome system of individually ordering each one for 24
    commands.

    Something also needs to be done, and I don't know what to suggest, to make
    the game less boring in the latter stages. That part of the game once all
    or most of the techs have been discovered, there's no more exploration and
    all you do each move is cycle through cities and units and nothing much is
    happening other than you're trying to build the spaceship, for example,
    before anyone else.

    These days, I rarely finish a game. Once I'm far enough ahead of the other
    Civs that they can't catch me, the game becomes repetitious and, frankly,
    boring.


    --
    Cheers
    Roger T.

    Home of the Great Eastern Railway
    http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Bst worker strategy??

    "wipe them out...all of them"


    "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95D912E96E8CFkdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
    > DigitalXS <spamshredder@verizon.net> wrote in
    > news:spamshredder-9D7885.21300608012005@news.gte.net:
    >
    > [snip]
    >>
    >> A great improvement in Civ 4 would be some simple powerful group
    >> command
    >
    > Yes, CIV definitely needs grouping commands. Something the does not
    > give a combat advantage (like the Army) but can be used freely in order
    > to minimize micromanagement.
    >
    >
    > --
    > ICQ: 8105495
    > AIM: KeeperGFA
    > EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
    > "If we did the things we are capable of,
    > we would astound ourselves." - Edison
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    In article <1b3a0d376b29da40862ea2d624d786b3@grapevine.islandnet.com>,
    "Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:

    > These days, I rarely finish a game. Once I'm far enough ahead of the other
    > Civs that they can't catch me, the game becomes repetitious and, frankly,
    > boring.

    Yep, you nailed it...and ugly to look at to boot.

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

    On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:31:19 -0800, "Roger T."
    <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:

    >
    >Something also needs to be done, and I don't know what to suggest, to make
    >the game less boring in the latter stages. That part of the game once all
    >or most of the techs have been discovered, there's no more exploration and
    >all you do each move is cycle through cities and units and nothing much is
    >happening other than you're trying to build the spaceship, for example,
    >before anyone else.
    >
    >These days, I rarely finish a game. Once I'm far enough ahead of the other
    >Civs that they can't catch me, the game becomes repetitious and, frankly,
    >boring.

    I always end up in some kind of a world war late in the game. The
    biggest powerhouses are usually involved and the weaker civs pair off
    to join a side. I try to make sure my side is stronger and more
    reputable one. On rare occasion this will end a nuke battle. I saw
    about 75 nukes fly back and forth in one game.

    Where I get bored is domination takes something like 66% to achieve.
    By about 40% there is usually no one that can touch me. I think the
    domination victory should be determined by a percentage but also in
    relation to what other civs have. Culture victory already has a
    calcluation like that. For instance if I reach 30% and the next
    biggest civ has 25% than the game keeps going. But if I have 30% and
    the next biggest civ has 5% it seems a waste to keep going. It is
    unlikely they could take me at that point At some point I feel like a
    giant bully moving in with modern armor just to finish the game.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:17:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:31:19 -0800, "Roger T."
    ><rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Something also needs to be done, and I don't know what to suggest, to make
    >>the game less boring in the latter stages. That part of the game once all
    >>or most of the techs have been discovered, there's no more exploration and
    >>all you do each move is cycle through cities and units and nothing much is
    >>happening other than you're trying to build the spaceship, for example,
    >>before anyone else.
    >>
    >>These days, I rarely finish a game. Once I'm far enough ahead of the other
    >>Civs that they can't catch me, the game becomes repetitious and, frankly,
    >>boring.
    >
    >I always end up in some kind of a world war late in the game. The
    >biggest powerhouses are usually involved and the weaker civs pair off
    >to join a side. I try to make sure my side is stronger and more
    >reputable one. On rare occasion this will end a nuke battle. I saw
    >about 75 nukes fly back and forth in one game.
    >
    >Where I get bored is domination takes something like 66% to achieve.
    >By about 40% there is usually no one that can touch me. I think the
    >domination victory should be determined by a percentage but also in
    >relation to what other civs have. Culture victory already has a
    >calcluation like that. For instance if I reach 30% and the next
    >biggest civ has 25% than the game keeps going. But if I have 30% and
    >the next biggest civ has 5% it seems a waste to keep going. It is
    >unlikely they could take me at that point At some point I feel like a
    >giant bully moving in with modern armor just to finish the game.
    >


    I don't think this is exactly what you are asking for, but, to state
    the obvious:

    The domination percentages can be changed by modifying the game limits
    in the beginning. You may try setting them down to 50% or so. I can
    only imagine that there is little the AI can do to win the domination
    victory once the human gets 50% of the world when there are multiple
    AI opponents.


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:05:16 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:

    >On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:17:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:31:19 -0800, "Roger T."
    >><rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Something also needs to be done, and I don't know what to suggest, to make
    >>>the game less boring in the latter stages. That part of the game once all
    >>>or most of the techs have been discovered, there's no more exploration and
    >>>all you do each move is cycle through cities and units and nothing much is
    >>>happening other than you're trying to build the spaceship, for example,
    >>>before anyone else.
    >>>
    >>>These days, I rarely finish a game. Once I'm far enough ahead of the other
    >>>Civs that they can't catch me, the game becomes repetitious and, frankly,
    >>>boring.
    >>
    >>I always end up in some kind of a world war late in the game. The
    >>biggest powerhouses are usually involved and the weaker civs pair off
    >>to join a side. I try to make sure my side is stronger and more
    >>reputable one. On rare occasion this will end a nuke battle. I saw
    >>about 75 nukes fly back and forth in one game.
    >>
    >>Where I get bored is domination takes something like 66% to achieve.
    >>By about 40% there is usually no one that can touch me. I think the
    >>domination victory should be determined by a percentage but also in
    >>relation to what other civs have. Culture victory already has a
    >>calcluation like that. For instance if I reach 30% and the next
    >>biggest civ has 25% than the game keeps going. But if I have 30% and
    >>the next biggest civ has 5% it seems a waste to keep going. It is
    >>unlikely they could take me at that point At some point I feel like a
    >>giant bully moving in with modern armor just to finish the game.
    >>
    >
    >
    >I don't think this is exactly what you are asking for, but, to state
    >the obvious:
    >
    >The domination percentages can be changed by modifying the game limits
    >in the beginning. You may try setting them down to 50% or so. I can
    >only imagine that there is little the AI can do to win the domination
    >victory once the human gets 50% of the world when there are multiple
    >AI opponents.
    >
    >
    >Buck

    I wasn't aware you could change victory condition details without
    modifying the rules. Will the game still show in the high scores?

    And yes I was talking about more. I basically don't want the game to
    end if there are still two superpowers left.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:34:09 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

    >On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:05:16 -0500, Buck <iam@this.site> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:17:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:31:19 -0800, "Roger T."
    >>><rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Something also needs to be done, and I don't know what to suggest, to make
    >>>>the game less boring in the latter stages. That part of the game once all
    >>>>or most of the techs have been discovered, there's no more exploration and
    >>>>all you do each move is cycle through cities and units and nothing much is
    >>>>happening other than you're trying to build the spaceship, for example,
    >>>>before anyone else.
    >>>>
    >>>>These days, I rarely finish a game. Once I'm far enough ahead of the other
    >>>>Civs that they can't catch me, the game becomes repetitious and, frankly,
    >>>>boring.
    >>>
    >>>I always end up in some kind of a world war late in the game. The
    >>>biggest powerhouses are usually involved and the weaker civs pair off
    >>>to join a side. I try to make sure my side is stronger and more
    >>>reputable one. On rare occasion this will end a nuke battle. I saw
    >>>about 75 nukes fly back and forth in one game.
    >>>
    >>>Where I get bored is domination takes something like 66% to achieve.
    >>>By about 40% there is usually no one that can touch me. I think the
    >>>domination victory should be determined by a percentage but also in
    >>>relation to what other civs have. Culture victory already has a
    >>>calcluation like that. For instance if I reach 30% and the next
    >>>biggest civ has 25% than the game keeps going. But if I have 30% and
    >>>the next biggest civ has 5% it seems a waste to keep going. It is
    >>>unlikely they could take me at that point At some point I feel like a
    >>>giant bully moving in with modern armor just to finish the game.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>I don't think this is exactly what you are asking for, but, to state
    >>the obvious:
    >>
    >>The domination percentages can be changed by modifying the game limits
    >>in the beginning. You may try setting them down to 50% or so. I can
    >>only imagine that there is little the AI can do to win the domination
    >>victory once the human gets 50% of the world when there are multiple
    >>AI opponents.
    >>
    >>
    >>Buck
    >
    >I wasn't aware you could change victory condition details without
    >modifying the rules. Will the game still show in the high scores?
    >
    >And yes I was talking about more. I basically don't want the game to
    >end if there are still two superpowers left.


    Mine gives me a score at the end of the game, but I have never seen
    recorded high scores since upgrading Conquests above 1.0


    Buck
    --
    For what it's worth.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games