Hoarding Useles Units

[Guest]

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

I often wonder the causes behind once great civs that seem to stagnate
and stall in tech. Sometimes long wars are the cause. In a recent
game I attacked a remote but fairly large size island. Early in the
game they had been powerful and had the Pyramids to show for it. My
modern armor where attacked with hordes of horsemen. I mean they had
hundreds of junk units pile up. They where too distant for any AI to
launch an effective attack against. So they just let the units
continue to pile up throughout the game. Their tech suffered and they
never made it past Nationalism/Steam Power. I wasn't too far ahead
when they had reached that.

I thought Conquests fixed this problem.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:03:44 -0400, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

>I often wonder the causes behind once great civs that seem to stagnate
>and stall in tech. Sometimes long wars are the cause. In a recent
>game I attacked a remote but fairly large size island. Early in the
>game they had been powerful and had the Pyramids to show for it. My
>modern armor where attacked with hordes of horsemen. I mean they had
>hundreds of junk units pile up. They where too distant for any AI to
>launch an effective attack against. So they just let the units
>continue to pile up throughout the game. Their tech suffered and they
>never made it past Nationalism/Steam Power. I wasn't too far ahead
>when they had reached that.
>
>I thought Conquests fixed this problem.

I've had that happen even without isolation, just a lack of wars.

From what I could tell from the negotiating table they got themselves
into a negative cashflow situation due to tons of units and they
couldn't get themselves out.

I also think this is behind the horrendously underdeveloped cities one
sometimes finds--I think the improvements were lost due to being sold
off.

I think the AI is designed based on an assumption of periodic conflict
and if it doesn't happen the AI can't straighten itself out.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:03:01 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@remove.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:03:44 -0400, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
>
>>I often wonder the causes behind once great civs that seem to stagnate
>>and stall in tech. Sometimes long wars are the cause. In a recent
>>game I attacked a remote but fairly large size island. Early in the
>>game they had been powerful and had the Pyramids to show for it. My
>>modern armor where attacked with hordes of horsemen. I mean they had
>>hundreds of junk units pile up. They where too distant for any AI to
>>launch an effective attack against. So they just let the units
>>continue to pile up throughout the game. Their tech suffered and they
>>never made it past Nationalism/Steam Power. I wasn't too far ahead
>>when they had reached that.
>>
>>I thought Conquests fixed this problem.
>
>I've had that happen even without isolation, just a lack of wars.
>
>From what I could tell from the negotiating table they got themselves
>into a negative cashflow situation due to tons of units and they
>couldn't get themselves out.
>
>I also think this is behind the horrendously underdeveloped cities one
>sometimes finds--I think the improvements were lost due to being sold
>off.
>
>I think the AI is designed based on an assumption of periodic conflict
>and if it doesn't happen the AI can't straighten itself out.

I always wondered about the selling improvements. Some of the
improvements in captured cities lack the improvements required to
build them. For instance their may be a stock exchange with no bank.
I wonder if you spend more than one turn to capture a city if the AI
sell of improvements in bulk. I find surprise attacks provide better
cities than long drawn out wars.

 

[Guest]

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

"P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
news:t0lci1pdjs2ju8qeroof7bhrrt5pqk99ft@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:03:01 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel@remove.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:03:44 -0400, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I often wonder the causes behind once great civs that seem to stagnate
>>>and stall in tech. Sometimes long wars are the cause. In a recent
>>>game I attacked a remote but fairly large size island. Early in the
>>>game they had been powerful and had the Pyramids to show for it. My
>>>modern armor where attacked with hordes of horsemen. I mean they had
>>>hundreds of junk units pile up. They where too distant for any AI to
>>>launch an effective attack against. So they just let the units
>>>continue to pile up throughout the game. Their tech suffered and they
>>>never made it past Nationalism/Steam Power. I wasn't too far ahead
>>>when they had reached that.
>>>
>>>I thought Conquests fixed this problem.
>>
>>I've had that happen even without isolation, just a lack of wars.
>>
>>From what I could tell from the negotiating table they got themselves
>>into a negative cashflow situation due to tons of units and they
>>couldn't get themselves out.
>>
>>I also think this is behind the horrendously underdeveloped cities one
>>sometimes finds--I think the improvements were lost due to being sold
>>off.
>>
>>I think the AI is designed based on an assumption of periodic conflict
>>and if it doesn't happen the AI can't straighten itself out.
>
> I always wondered about the selling improvements. Some of the
> improvements in captured cities lack the improvements required to
> build them. For instance their may be a stock exchange with no bank.
> I wonder if you spend more than one turn to capture a city if the AI
> sell of improvements in bulk. I find surprise attacks provide better
> cities than long drawn out wars.
>

The reason why you get a city with no bank and with a stock exchange is
because some improvements are lost during the capture process.
You can verify this by investigating the city prior to capture.

Often I need a 'captured' harbour when starting an island invasion - but
alas, often a city with a harbour looses it on capure.

 

[Guest]

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

P12 wrote:
> I always wondered about the selling improvements. Some of the
> improvements in captured cities lack the improvements required to
> build them. For instance their may be a stock exchange with no bank.
> I wonder if you spend more than one turn to capture a city if the AI
> sell of improvements in bulk. I find surprise attacks provide better
> cities than long drawn out wars.

IIRC in Civ2 it was only possible to sell one improvement in each city
per turn, exactly to prevent that kind of abuse.

(Or rather, I recall that the manual said it was impossible. But some of
the things in the manual only applied to human players)

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:47:13 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
<nospam@butfish.com> wrote:

>The reason why you get a city with no bank and with a stock exchange is
>because some improvements are lost during the capture process.
>You can verify this by investigating the city prior to capture.
>
>Often I need a 'captured' harbour when starting an island invasion - but
>alas, often a city with a harbour looses it on capure.

I thought only cultural improvements where lost during city capture.
Unless bombard the city in which case the game tells you which
improvements are lost. I very rarely use bombardment unless I plan to
destroy the city.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:02:53 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>IIRC in Civ2 it was only possible to sell one improvement in each city
>per turn, exactly to prevent that kind of abuse.
>
>(Or rather, I recall that the manual said it was impossible. But some of
>the things in the manual only applied to human players)

Early on in my civ playing I tried selling of improvements. The AI
had beat me to two islands only a few turns before I was going to
settle there. So I stuck cities in the extra squares and flooded them
with culture. Eventually my cities controlled all the land squares.
The AI went to war of course attacked those cities first. I thought
for sure I would lose them before I could get reinforcements so I sold
off the improvements. The AI bombarded the city with about 25
frigates every turn. They unloaded countless troops over many turns
but never took the city. Eventually I sent out reinforcements and
took their cities before making peace. Now I never sell improvements.

 

[Guest]

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

"P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
news:4u4ni1p5sida2u9q77hmu2jpv7hhka6t2g@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:47:13 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
>
>>The reason why you get a city with no bank and with a stock exchange is
>>because some improvements are lost during the capture process.
>>You can verify this by investigating the city prior to capture.
>>
>>Often I need a 'captured' harbour when starting an island invasion - but
>>alas, often a city with a harbour looses it on capure.
>
> I thought only cultural improvements where lost during city capture.
> Unless bombard the city in which case the game tells you which
> improvements are lost. I very rarely use bombardment unless I plan to
> destroy the city.

No, there is a 50% chance of each improvement being destroyed.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:03:44 -0400, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

>I often wonder the causes behind once great civs that seem to stagnate
>and stall in tech. Sometimes long wars are the cause. In a recent
>game I attacked a remote but fairly large size island. Early in the
>game they had been powerful and had the Pyramids to show for it. My
>modern armor where attacked with hordes of horsemen. I mean they had
>hundreds of junk units pile up. They where too distant for any AI to
>launch an effective attack against. So they just let the units
>continue to pile up throughout the game. Their tech suffered and they
>never made it past Nationalism/Steam Power. I wasn't too far ahead
>when they had reached that.
>
>I thought Conquests fixed this problem.

It makes it better but doesn't entirely fix it. With cheaper
upgrade units for some and a bit better AI for upgrades, it is easier
for the AI to fix ancient units.

But it can't do it without barracks and gold. Once they run low on
gold, obsolete units are stuck. If they can't afford barracks,
likewise. If they need resources and don't have them, same deal.

If they can't easily build the best units for the tech due to lack
of resources, they'll make lots of cheap units.

I find it hard to upgrade units on isolated islands. The cost to
make the harbor and barracks needed to make this possible is too much,
if I need the gold elsewhere.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

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

On the 18 Sep 2005, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I find it hard to upgrade units on isolated islands. The cost to
> make the harbor and barracks needed to make this possible is too much,
> if I need the gold elsewhere.

Exchange the units for upgraded ones from your mainland?

--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:25:25 +0000 (UTC), Graham Thurlwell
<nospam@jades.org> wrote:

>On the 18 Sep 2005, Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I find it hard to upgrade units on isolated islands. The cost to
>> make the harbor and barracks needed to make this possible is too much,
>> if I need the gold elsewhere.
>
>Exchange the units for upgraded ones from your mainland?

When I can do that, yes. But the travel time for some distant
outposts is too great, the transport ships needed elsewhere.

The AI is of course even worse at this sort of thing than I. I at
least can figure out ways to do it, while the AI doesn't have a "move
unit to an upgrade location or replace it with a newer unit" plan, as
far as I can tell. It simply builds new units, leaving the old ones
to function as is, despite the overpriced maintenance.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:45:44 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

> When I can do that, yes. But the travel time for some distant
>outposts is too great, the transport ships needed elsewhere.
>
> The AI is of course even worse at this sort of thing than I. I at
>least can figure out ways to do it, while the AI doesn't have a "move
>unit to an upgrade location or replace it with a newer unit" plan, as
>far as I can tell. It simply builds new units, leaving the old ones
>to function as is, despite the overpriced maintenance.

Whenever I start out on an island I keep an ancient army until I feel
a threat from the distant civs. Then I use the ancient units to rush
build improvements rather than upgrade.

I have cut my upgrading drastically in Conquest because the cost is
too high. I think the game makers did that on purpose to make the
human player upgrade like the AI. Often I skip over entire levels of
advancement because they are not worth the cost. I avoid building
musket men altogether.

Note that the AI generally wont bring units home again either. So if
you try to capture a remote AI civ it could have 8 tanks in it. That
just happens to be what it used to capture the city from another civ.
Even though the other civ only had spearman in it. If their mission
to take the city is interrupted they will leave the units on the
island or in boats. When they are loosing major cities you would
think getting these home would be high priority.

I don't know if anyone else has figured this trick out. I know the AI
doesn't know about it. For small islands I will spread units out over
the land squares and leave only one or two in the city. Some of
these can even be workers. If the AI cannot land there is little
chance of a attack on the city. The will attempt to bombard the
squares the units occupy. This trick saves me wasting expensive units
in a remote city.