Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C3C Forbidden Palace

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 10:30:51 PM

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

I haven't played Civ3 for a while but recently started again with
Conquests. I'm having a blast with the Rise of Rome scenario, but the
Forbidden Palace doesn't seem to be working properly - there's still
corruption and wasted shields in the FP city and those nearby.

I heard somewhere that Conquests has a few bugs, is this one of them?
Does it apply to the whole of Conquests or just the RoR scenario?

More about : c3c forbidden palace

Anonymous
February 10, 2005 10:30:52 PM

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

<digweed808@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1idn019gh9fpv8b1usgmqghqj0l7r0ps97@4ax.com...
>I haven't played Civ3 for a while but recently started again with
> Conquests. I'm having a blast with the Rise of Rome scenario, but the
> Forbidden Palace doesn't seem to be working properly - there's still
> corruption and wasted shields in the FP city and those nearby.
>
> I heard somewhere that Conquests has a few bugs, is this one of them?
> Does it apply to the whole of Conquests or just the RoR scenario?

Actually, it's the VC3-PTW corruption model that is still bugged. C3C
corruption works the way the designers originally intended. To get full
benefit of the FP in C3C, you have to also build corruption reducing
buildings in the city.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:26:01 AM

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

"The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
><digweed808@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> I heard somewhere that Conquests has a few bugs, is this one of them?
>> Does it apply to the whole of Conquests or just the RoR scenario?
>
>Actually, it's the VC3-PTW corruption model that is still bugged. C3C
>corruption works the way the designers originally intended. To get full
>benefit of the FP in C3C, you have to also build corruption reducing
>buildings in the city.
>

Ah, thanks. I can only build Courthouse in this scenario and am
running out of time anyway :(  But I'll bear that in mind in future.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 3:03:50 PM

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

Conquests 1.00 thru 1.02 [same executables, just internationalized]
indeed have a bug with FP, SPHQ, and all equaivlents.

They all work properly with 1.22. But note there is a major difference
in how they work than pre Conquests.

Pre Conquests, you got a new set of city rank numbers for the FP.
(Ideal location is as far from the Palace as possible)

In 1.0, you had a new set of city rank numbers, but multipied by 2!
(Equivelent to relocating 1/2 the palace!) Even worse with SPHQ added
in.

(Ideal location: NONE! Do NOT build either.)

In 1.22, There is no new set of city rank numbers, but OCN is
effectively increased and the distance portion does use closer of P &
FP.

(Ideal location for FP: Fastest adviable city that has some level of
shield waste but not surrounded by max corrupt cities. When worth
building any and all equalivents at all in the sceneros/conquests, the
same applies. [Arrives kind of late for those seeking Wonder victory in
Mesopotiania Conquest.])

(Ideal location for SPHQ if you go commie in stock: Probably an Iron
Works city if it's suffering any shield waste. For communist
corruption, it makes that one city very good and helps all other cities
equally.)
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 3:04:38 PM

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

Provided your not running Conquests UNPATCHED
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 7:26:32 PM

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

joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

[...]

>
>In 1.22, There is no new set of city rank numbers, but OCN is
>effectively increased and the distance portion does use closer of P &
>FP.

Is this documented anywhere?
>
>(Ideal location for FP: Fastest adviable city that has some level of
>shield waste but not surrounded by max corrupt cities. When worth
>building any and all equalivents at all in the sceneros/conquests, the
>same applies. [Arrives kind of late for those seeking Wonder victory in
>Mesopotiania Conquest.])

I've only played Mesopotamia and currently playing Rise of Rome.
Certainly didn't need FP in Mesopotamia. In RoR I used a leader to
build it (out of habit) but it hasn't really done a lot of good. The
scenario changes so many rules that it's hard to see it in context
anyway. Not that I'm complaining - it's a great scenario.

Just out of interest, how do you guys rate the C3C scenarios? Are they
all worth playing? (Sorry if this is old but I've only just started
with Conquests after quite a long break from Civ3.)
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:49:00 PM

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

digweed808@hotmail.com wrote in
news:0gbs01t02bjqgc8r3ekq3lq4ja1dsa6a8r@4ax.com:

> Just out of interest, how do you guys rate the C3C scenarios? Are
> they all worth playing? (Sorry if this is old but I've only just
> started with Conquests after quite a long break from Civ3.)

You should win them all once.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 3:11:10 PM

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

Easyist one: Napolean. There's a bug that allows victory on turn 1
playing either the French or English on any difficulty level.

Most difficult one: Rise of Rome. No short cuts to victory modes. There
is a bug on turn 1 that allows Rome to buy all countries workers and
also get the Celts to gladly turn over their city blocking you from
reaching Spain also on turn 1, but after there's no real short cuts,
you need to get a full 20% of the land area and that takes time even
with ToA, Leg IIIs, HC, and Citizens.

Others:

Mesoptaina : Easy to win on Monarch without fighting a single war for
Egypt, Macedonia [AI has lots of trouble with this one but still easy
for humans], Medes. Maybe more.

Fall of Rome: Easy to win on Monarch as Huns using standard build
baracks lots of units, then upgrade to Warlords and fight. No need to
build any more nomads. My quest to wipe out everyone was interupted by
winning by VPs.

Meso America: Easy to win as Incas single city culturally on Monarch,
fight the minor civ north of you for your GA.

Middle Ages: As Turks on Monarch, easy to win by first getting several
of your UUs and then using them as powerful 3 MP units. My quest for
domination was interupted by winning by VPs.

Age of Discovery: Easy to win as Aztecs on Monarch culturaly single
city. Neigboring Mayas dumb enough to declare war so you get your GA. I
only built 2 cities in that one. (Captured most of Incas)

Japan: Easy to win as the Dark Green one starting along the river coast
via the equivlent of UN. No wars needed, athough I did form long
military unit chains to keep the AI from reaching any city so it
wouldn't sneak attack. [I'm all too familiar with Civ III AI's tactics]

WW II Pacific: Easy to win as China on Monarch level via score if you
mobilize for war on turn 1. No need for naval units as China, just lots
of land units, particularly tanks. Japanese AI doesn't devote enough
units to the Chinese front, and I had them kicked entirely off of
mainland Asia shortly before the Allies collectively hit the VP limit.
!