31 Civ game!

john

Splendid
Aug 25, 2003
3,819
0
22,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I am currently playing a game on C3C on a Huge map with a total of 31 Civs
competing at once! For those of you who haven't tried it, you should do.
It's mad! I'm playing Monarch and leading the Science race but am so far
behind what I usually am at this point that the Science timeline is almost
realistic! It's the middle ages and we are all still using middle ages
units.

It really forces you to rethink your strategies too and makes for a much
more interesting game!. I normally use my capital as a settler factory in
the early stages of the game. This often means that the AI has 4 cities up
and running before I even have my 2nd if I have had to wander around looking
for a good starting location. Tried that first game I played and before I
knew it I was surrounded with no chance of expansion!

I thought scientifically it may speed things up as you'd have loads of civs
trading techs but the opposite has actually happened because there no
superpower civs yet (there are still 30 of us left, only the Romans have
been destroyed) no one really can churn out masses of Science so the
progression rate is more realistic and slower than usual.

Finally resources take on a whole knew twist. Almost twice as many civs
fighting over the same amount of resources! It means you have to trade a lot
more and be a lot more careful about who you wage war on as you have so few
cities you simply cannot afford to lose a couple, and because you can't
churn out stacks of military units its harder to take other cities too (not
to mention you march them off to war and your nearest neighbour may decide
to pay your Kingdom a visit!). It's vital that you get early Scientific
knowledge of The Wheel and Iron Working so you can hopefully spot some
untaken Iron/Horse before your rivals. In my current game I have Iron, but
the City is right next to the American border and is a Desert city so only
has a pop of 3. I am constantly worried that its going to get culture
flipped and I'll lose my precious Iron! I don't even have Horse and am
currently having to trade for it! The positive side is that means some
rivals who are technologically as advanced as I am don't have the resource
to build a decent military either. I am currently at war with the Zulu and
although they are pretty much up with me technologically they have no Iron
or Horse so my Medieval Infantry and Knights are wiping the floor with them.
They have just discovered Invention though so they at least have Bowman.
Next step for me is to get Gunpowder and hope that I have Saltpeter
somewhere in my borders.....

I play Huge Map, Continents with 70% water.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

wow, this actually sounds like the most realistic way to play civ yet
-- i like this model because it emphasizes strategy more, as well as
realism.

i haven't tried it though because i'm afraid my p3 850/250mb will
crash! have you noticed it dragging on your computer speed?

if a (inter)national tournament is ever devised, it'll definately have
to use this model -- tons of civ, huge map.

- cl



John wrote:
> I am currently playing a game on C3C on a Huge map with a total of 31
Civs
> competing at once! For those of you who haven't tried it, you should
do.
> It's mad! I'm playing Monarch and leading the Science race but am so
far
> behind what I usually am at this point that the Science timeline is
almost
> realistic! It's the middle ages and we are all still using middle
ages
> units.
>
> It really forces you to rethink your strategies too and makes for a
much
> more interesting game!. I normally use my capital as a settler
factory in
> the early stages of the game. This often means that the AI has 4
cities up
> and running before I even have my 2nd if I have had to wander around
looking
> for a good starting location. Tried that first game I played and
before I
> knew it I was surrounded with no chance of expansion!
>
> I thought scientifically it may speed things up as you'd have loads
of civs
> trading techs but the opposite has actually happened because there no

> superpower civs yet (there are still 30 of us left, only the Romans
have
> been destroyed) no one really can churn out masses of Science so the
> progression rate is more realistic and slower than usual.
>
> Finally resources take on a whole knew twist. Almost twice as many
civs
> fighting over the same amount of resources! It means you have to
trade a lot
> more and be a lot more careful about who you wage war on as you have
so few
> cities you simply cannot afford to lose a couple, and because you
can't
> churn out stacks of military units its harder to take other cities
too (not
> to mention you march them off to war and your nearest neighbour may
decide
> to pay your Kingdom a visit!). It's vital that you get early
Scientific
> knowledge of The Wheel and Iron Working so you can hopefully spot
some
> untaken Iron/Horse before your rivals. In my current game I have
Iron, but
> the City is right next to the American border and is a Desert city so
only
> has a pop of 3. I am constantly worried that its going to get culture

> flipped and I'll lose my precious Iron! I don't even have Horse and
am
> currently having to trade for it! The positive side is that means
some
> rivals who are technologically as advanced as I am don't have the
resource
> to build a decent military either. I am currently at war with the
Zulu and
> although they are pretty much up with me technologically they have no
Iron
> or Horse so my Medieval Infantry and Knights are wiping the floor
with them.
> They have just discovered Invention though so they at least have
Bowman.
> Next step for me is to get Gunpowder and hope that I have Saltpeter
> somewhere in my borders.....
>
> I play Huge Map, Continents with 70% water.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

> The other problem I have is that if America or Japan (whom I border)
> do well against Russia and take Russian cities they may outgrow me in
power
> and become too much of a threat!

yeah, when a strong power is at war with a weak one, i love
giving/selling iron and military-related techs to the weaker power, so
they can mount a stronger resistance. too bad you can't sell them
strong defensive units.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

<commandoLine@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105565211.163917.213060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> wow, this actually sounds like the most realistic way to play civ yet
> -- i like this model because it emphasizes strategy more, as well as
> realism.
>
> i haven't tried it though because i'm afraid my p3 850/250mb will
> crash! have you noticed it dragging on your computer speed?
>
> if a (inter)national tournament is ever devised, it'll definately have
> to use this model -- tons of civ, huge map.

So far my Athlon 1600XP is doing OK. I have 512gb of RAM. What it will be
like as the game progresses I don't know. Theoretically it should be slower
than usual but I get the feeling it may not be due to no specific AI
opponent having to take loads of time do things because none of them are
that huge either!

It is far more realistc so far. I don't rate myself as an exceptional Civ
player by any means but the going is certainly a lot slower than normal!
Usually by now I own a third of the continent, but at present I have just 10
cities, and a lot of them have very poor shield production due to being on
plains or desert. My only saving graces is London which has a superb
location and is churning out a massive production rate for its age.

I'll keep the group posted as to how it goes, I get the feeling its all
about to kick off. On my way to invading the Zulu's I noticed a Russian
troop movement coming my way and sure enough they declared war on me. They
then allied with Egypt who also declared war on me. In return I now have
the Americans & Japan on my side vs Russia and the Chinese vs Egypt. I am
still soley at war with the Zulu too. It's going to be an interesting few
turns! The other problem I have is that if America or Japan (whom I border)
do well against Russia and take Russian cities they may outgrow me in power
and become too much of a threat!
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:14:01 -0000, "John" <dum@dum.dum> wrote:

>I am currently playing a game on C3C on a Huge map with a total of 31 Civs
>competing at once! For those of you who haven't tried it, you should do.
>It's mad! I'm playing Monarch and leading the Science race but am so far
>behind what I usually am at this point that the Science timeline is almost
>realistic! It's the middle ages and we are all still using middle ages
>units.


I prefer to limit my opponents to 21 as that is a number that more
reasonably fits on my screen in the setup. However, I have and you
are correct. It is fun.

Wanna have more fun, do the same on a small or tiny world. :)


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

On 12 Jan 2005 13:26:51 -0800, commandoLine@yahoo.com wrote:

>wow, this actually sounds like the most realistic way to play civ yet
>-- i like this model because it emphasizes strategy more, as well as
>realism.
>
>i haven't tried it though because i'm afraid my p3 850/250mb will
>crash! have you noticed it dragging on your computer speed?
>

With vanilla Civ3 or C3C, it would be very slow for you.

Try the Rhye's of Civilization mod, instead. It's a 32 player, huge
earth map scenario for C3C which has been optimized for speed. It
runs very well on my P3 667 / 256MB. Turns take less than a minute.

You can get it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=77848
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I don't think XP could effectively address 512 GB of RAM
My guess is he really has 512 MB of RAM = .5 GB of RAM.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

John <dum@dum.dum> wrote:

> I have 512gb of RAM.

That's a truly extraordinary amount.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:kluhb2-rb1.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
> John <dum@dum.dum> wrote:
>
>> I have 512gb of RAM.
>
> That's a truly extraordinary amount.

You know what i meant! lol!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:kluhb2-rb1.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
> John <dum@dum.dum> wrote:
>
>> I have 512gb of RAM.
>
> That's a truly extraordinary amount.

You know what i meant! lol!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:38:51 -0000, John <dum@dum.dum> wrote:
>
> "Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:kluhb2-rb1.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
>> John <dum@dum.dum> wrote:
>>
>>> I have 512gb of RAM.
>>
>> That's a truly extraordinary amount.
>
> You know what i meant! lol!

It's always funny when someone who has been in IT since long before
it was _called_ IT gets their units messed up. Usually it's calling
gigabytes megabytes, but yeah.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I'm thinking 10 to 15 years from now, people will be bragging about how
many chips they have inside their CPUs.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> It's always funny when someone who has been in IT since long before
> it was _called_ IT gets their units messed up. Usually it's calling
> gigabytes megabytes, but yeah.

An acquaintance recently told me that he had a 30 Megabyte processor. I
couldn't work out whether he meant 3MHz, or he was talking about his hard
drive.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

> I don't think XP could effectively address 512 GB of RAM
> My guess is he really has 512 MB of RAM = .5 GB of RAM.

Indeed, though if Moore's law holds out for another 15 years...

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:20:08 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
wrote:

>Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> It's always funny when someone who has been in IT since long before
>> it was _called_ IT gets their units messed up. Usually it's calling
>> gigabytes megabytes, but yeah.
>
>An acquaintance recently told me that he had a 30 Megabyte processor. I
>couldn't work out whether he meant 3MHz, or he was talking about his hard
>drive.

I assume your mean 3GHZ. I can't imagine what your acquaintance was
talking about but he must have an interesting discussion with the
salesman.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:22:41 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
wrote:

>joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I don't think XP could effectively address 512 GB of RAM
>> My guess is he really has 512 MB of RAM = .5 GB of RAM.
>
>Indeed, though if Moore's law holds out for another 15 years...

Yeah. I have more than 10,000 times the RAM I had in my first
machine. I have a lot more RAM than my first work machine had in HD
space. I've lost track of an old server drive but I think it's around
the house somewhere--and I have 3x the RAM as the capacity of that
drive.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:20:08 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It's always funny when someone who has been in IT since long before
>>> it was _called_ IT gets their units messed up. Usually it's calling
>>> gigabytes megabytes, but yeah.
>>
>>An acquaintance recently told me that he had a 30 Megabyte processor. I
>>couldn't work out whether he meant 3MHz, or he was talking about his hard
>>drive.
>
> I assume your mean 3GHZ.

***Red Face***

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:22:41 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:
> joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I don't think XP could effectively address 512 GB of RAM
>> My guess is he really has 512 MB of RAM = .5 GB of RAM.
>
> Indeed, though if Moore's law holds out for another 15 years...

It doesn't show any signs of becoming wrong. Smart guy, Moore.
I'm amazed that there are, for instance, IT managers who haven't
heard of it and don't understand it's implications. For a while
I used to track our disk usage growth, and after about 5 years
gave up because I was just plotting Moore's law.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah. I have more than 10,000 times the RAM I had in my first
> machine. I have a lot more RAM than my first work machine had in HD
> space. I've lost track of an old server drive but I think it's around
> the house somewhere--and I have 3x the RAM as the capacity of that
> drive.

My first toy computer was a 4MHz Zilog Z80 based Sinclair ZX81 with 1KB of
memory. As I recall, less than half that 1K was available for programming.
It used an ordinary audio cassette recorder for hard storage. This would be
around 1981-1982

My first real computer was a 12MHz (or maybe 16MHZ, I'm not certain) 80286
based AT clone with 640MB of ram and a 5MB HD. (Late 80's) Obviously the
286 could do more per cycle than the Z80, so it was a lot more than three or
four times faster.

This 3 year old box has an 800MHz Duron with 512MB RAM and originally 30GB
HD. I've since added a 160GB.

I'll shortly be replacing it with a new box with roughly the following spec:
3GHz Pentium 4, 1GB RAM, No increase in HD capacity (I'll use what I've
already got.)

Let's compare that spec with the 23-24 year old ZX81. The Z80 was an 8-bit
processor whose fastest instructions took 4 cycles (load and store). I
don't recall how long an add took. There were no multiply or divide
instructions. Naturally there was no FPU, so these operations would take
many hundreds of instructions, and probably thousands of cycles.

A Pentium 4 (correct me if I'm wrong) can do an 80 bit FLOP in a single
cycle, which would probably make it of the order of a million times
as fast as the Z80.

1GB RAM is obviously over a million times as much as 1KB.

I don't recall how much data I could fit on a cassette. I would be
surprised if it was as much as 200K.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:22:41 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:
>> joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think XP could effectively address 512 GB of RAM
>>> My guess is he really has 512 MB of RAM = .5 GB of RAM.
>>
>> Indeed, though if Moore's law holds out for another 15 years...
>
> It doesn't show any signs of becoming wrong. Smart guy, Moore.

There are fundamental limits at which the law must break down. I don't know
when that is likely to be, but 15 years is a long time.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'm thinking 10 to 15 years from now, people will be bragging about how
> many chips they have inside their CPUs.

It's more likely that they'll be bragging about how many CPUs they have in
their chips.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:43:49 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
wrote:

>Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:22:41 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:
>>> joncnunn@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think XP could effectively address 512 GB of RAM
>>>> My guess is he really has 512 MB of RAM = .5 GB of RAM.
>>>
>>> Indeed, though if Moore's law holds out for another 15 years...
>>
>> It doesn't show any signs of becoming wrong. Smart guy, Moore.
>
>There are fundamental limits at which the law must break down. I don't know
>when that is likely to be, but 15 years is a long time.

There must be a limit somewhere but the curve shows no sign of
inflecting yet. In fact, Moore's Law does seem to be failing a
bit--in the last couple of decades the real curve is running slightly
ahead of the prediction.

Note that Moore's Law holds all the way back into the 19th
century.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:41:02 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net>
wrote:

>Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I have more than 10,000 times the RAM I had in my first
>> machine. I have a lot more RAM than my first work machine had in HD
>> space. I've lost track of an old server drive but I think it's around
>> the house somewhere--and I have 3x the RAM as the capacity of that
>> drive.
>
>My first toy computer was a 4MHz Zilog Z80 based Sinclair ZX81 with 1KB of
>memory. As I recall, less than half that 1K was available for programming.
>It used an ordinary audio cassette recorder for hard storage. This would be
>around 1981-1982

The first I used had 4k, and cassette storage. It wasn't my
equipment, though.

>Let's compare that spec with the 23-24 year old ZX81. The Z80 was an 8-bit
>processor whose fastest instructions took 4 cycles (load and store). I
>don't recall how long an add took. There were no multiply or divide
>instructions. Naturally there was no FPU, so these operations would take
>many hundreds of instructions, and probably thousands of cycles.
>
>A Pentium 4 (correct me if I'm wrong) can do an 80 bit FLOP in a single
>cycle, which would probably make it of the order of a million times
>as fast as the Z80.
>
>1GB RAM is obviously over a million times as much as 1KB.
>
>I don't recall how much data I could fit on a cassette. I would be
>surprised if it was as much as 200K.

Yeah, my computer (the only one I've ever owned--since then I've
had equipment provided by work and I haven't needed to buy one) was
Z80 based.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:43:49 +0000, Daran <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't show any signs of becoming wrong. Smart guy, Moore.
>
> There are fundamental limits at which the law must break down. I don't know
> when that is likely to be, but 15 years is a long time.

They've been saying Moore's Law would hit those limits for a couple
of decades now. Still hasn't.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, my computer (the only one I've ever owned--since then I've
> had equipment provided by work and I haven't needed to buy one) was
> Z80 based.

The Z80 was a cool processor, far better than the 808X it was based on.
Zilog are still going, and still manufacture a version of it, for use in
embedded controllers.

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll