Corruption in Civilization III

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss again.
I am playing a game of C3C... there are three civilizations, Americans (me),
Germans, and English.
It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
Current income: 1884
Expenses: 1877
- 389 to science
- 51 to entertainment
- 903 to corruption
- 335 to maintenance
- 199 unit support costs
- 0 to other civs

I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a couple of
smaller islands.
I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations. All but 5
of the cities are connected.

Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing *50%*
of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an Anarchy,
but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!

Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?
Best,
John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

That IS minimal corruption level.

Rampant is Dispositism, you'd be suffering much worse.

In anarchy in Civ III, you suffer 100% corruption. The only gold you
can produce is from taxmen.

What your doing wrong:

1. Assuming you have the Conquests 1.22 patch, the FP should have been
built long ago. Effectively doubles the OCN everywhere. There's also a
major reducation in max corruption for the FP city itself (Max
corruption -=70%) And it has an additional minor benfit for the nearby
cities by reducing distance based corruption, provided it's not
surrounded by cities already at max allowed corruption.

2. Having no police stations. A Court House, Police Station, and WLTPD
[shields only] each half the effective city number for the city rank
corruption calculations. In addition, both a CH and a PS reduces max
corruption by 10% each. With both structures, a city will suffer no
worse than 70% corruption.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Especally if you consider much of the social warfare programs at the
fed,state, and local levels as commerce lost to corruption.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote in
news:Rw%Sd.9336$x53.2748@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss
> again. I am playing a game of C3C... there are three
> civilizations, Americans (me), Germans, and English.
> It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
> Current income: 1884
> Expenses: 1877
> - 389 to science
> - 51 to entertainment
> - 903 to corruption
> - 335 to maintenance
> - 199 unit support costs
> - 0 to other civs
>
> I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a
> couple of smaller islands.
> I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations.
> All but 5 of the cities are connected.
>
> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I
> losing *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as
> 'rampant' in an Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>
> Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in
> the past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified?
> Thoughts? Comments?

Seems pretty obvious to me. You have 84 cities. You fail to
mention map size but the Optimal number of cities is (IIRC) 16 for
normal up to 32 for huge. So even if you're playing huge, you have
more than twice as many cities as you should.
Corruption isn't meant to be realistic, it's used to help balance
the game so that smaller empires still have a chance to compete with
oversized empires like yours.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <Rw%Sd.9336$x53.2748@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:
>I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss again.
>I am playing a game of C3C... there are three civilizations, Americans (me),
>Germans, and English.
>It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
>Current income: 1884
>Expenses: 1877
> - 389 to science
> - 51 to entertainment
> - 903 to corruption
> - 335 to maintenance
> - 199 unit support costs
> - 0 to other civs
>
>I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a couple of
>smaller islands.

At a guess you have the sliders set to 10% luxuries and 80% science. 199 units
(including workers) for 84 cities is ~2.4 units per city. You are running
light on the military.

>I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations. All but 5
>of the cities are connected.
>
>Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing *50%*
>of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an Anarchy,
>but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!

In Civ 3 corruption and waste are the products of your empire's economy that
you in the role of the central government don't control. Rather than
improving your Legions of Terror and building monuments to your glory your
virtual citizens are buying steaks and fur coats. The nerve of them!

Reality check, in the US the various levels of government control about 40% of
the economy. Another way of looking at it is that the various levels of
government don't control 60% of the economy so in Civ 3 terms they US
currently is experiencing 60% waste and corruption. 🙂


>Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?

Basically it looks like you have gone way past the optimum number of cities and
not made a serious effort to reduce waste and corruption. You should see a
dramatic drop in waste and corruption if you build the Forbidden Palace.
Police Stations will help, but their biggest impact will be in cities that are
currently border line, say experiencing 50% waste and corruption.

You will want to build Police Stations any to help prevent war weariness.


Mike G

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:27:13 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

>I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss again.
>I am playing a game of C3C... there are three civilizations, Americans (me),
>Germans, and English.
>It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
>Current income: 1884
>Expenses: 1877
> - 389 to science
> - 51 to entertainment
> - 903 to corruption
> - 335 to maintenance
> - 199 unit support costs
> - 0 to other civs
>
>I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a couple of
>smaller islands.
>I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations. All but 5
>of the cities are connected.
>
>Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing *50%*
>of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an Anarchy,
>but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>
>Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?

Well, anyone can tell you that "democracy" and "corruption" are far
from mutually exclusive things. In this case "minimal" just means "as
low as you can get". It doesn't mean actually "close to nonexistant",
particularly when you haven't taken all the available methods for
corruption control. Just build your police stations and Palace, get
some taxmen in outlying cities and move on.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:52:42 GMT,
mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:


>>Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing *50%*
>>of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an Anarchy,
>>but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>
>In Civ 3 corruption and waste are the products of your empire's economy that
>you in the role of the central government don't control. Rather than
>improving your Legions of Terror and building monuments to your glory your
>virtual citizens are buying steaks and fur coats. The nerve of them!

Steaks and fur coats are represented by both the luxury value and
trade goods. They are not corruption.

>
>Reality check, in the US the various levels of government control about 40% of
>the economy. Another way of looking at it is that the various levels of
>government don't control 60% of the economy so in Civ 3 terms they US
>currently is experiencing 60% waste and corruption. 🙂

Only true if you think that only government funded research develops
new technology. But that isn't true, of course. No, corruption and
waste represent systemic inefficiencies in the civilisation as a
whole. That's crime, recreational drug use interfering with
productivity, bureaucratic red tape, low level insurgencies, labor
disputes, that sort of thing. And democracies are not by any stretch
of the imagination immune to such things.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions. I'm shocked that 50% of
>my revenue can be lost to corruption at the 'least' corrupt government
>level. It also bothers me that the number of cities is intentionally limited
>to 'balance' the game.

If that bothers you so much, it's easy enough to mod the game files in
place. Poke around in your installation directy. Make original copies
of any file before you start editing. If you're new at this sort of thing,
there's a chance you can screw it up. Also, don't change too much at once.
Change a little, try a little (that way if you screw it up, you don't
have to unwind everything in a big chunk).

C//

 

[daran]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In alt.games.civ3 Mike Garcia <mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu>
wrote:

> In article <Rw%Sd.9336$x53.2748@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "John
> A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:
>>I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss again. I am
>>playing a game of C3C... there are three civilizations, Americans (me),
>>Germans, and English.
>>It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
>>Current income: 1884
>>Expenses: 1877
>> - 389 to science
>> - 51 to entertainment
>> - 903 to corruption
>> - 335 to maintenance
>> - 199 unit support costs
>> - 0 to other civs
>>
>>I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a couple of
>>smaller islands.
>
> At a guess you have the sliders set to 10% luxuries and 80% science. 199
> units (including workers) for 84 cities is ~2.4 units per city. You are
> running light on the military.

Not necessarily a bad thing if he's not at war, given the size of his empire
which is presumably railroad connected, so he can station all his troops on
his borders, and move them rapidly to counter any threat.

More serious IMO is his maintenance - less than 4 gold per city. Assuming
that he's acquired half his cities recently, and build nothing in them, that
still means that his core empire has only 8 gold/turn's worth of improvement
in each city.

It's a bit late to do anything about it in 1970 - you should decide on your
victory condition and focus on achieving it. If it were earlier in the
game, I'd recommend you put science down to 10% (or zero and create a
scientist) and use your revenues to build income earning improvements.
Market Places and Banks obviously, but also Granaries, Cathedrals, and
Aqueducts - anything, in fact, which helps them to grow. When I had over 80
cities in my last huge-map game, with many of them recently acquired and not
fully developed, I was taking in over 4000 gold/turn before expenses.

You don't get ahead in this game by being technologically advanced, but too
poor to enjoy the benefits. You get ahead by making the best use of the
tech you do have, which means building the improvements they make available.

>>I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations. All but 5
>>of the cities are connected.

That's part of the problem. The FP in particular will be a huge benefit.

> Mike G

--
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

 

[daran]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In alt.games.civ3 John A. Mason <jamason56@myearthlink.net> wrote:

> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing
> *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an
> Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!

Corruption in Anarchy is 100%

> John

--
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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Domination victory level is 66% of worlds land area + 66% of the worlds
population.

Cultural victory level is One City : 20K, Empire wide 100K on standard
map, adjusted for different sizes, plus in addition double that of the
second highest cultural.

If the game hits 2050, what's going to matter is score for the tie
breaker, which is heavily weighted towards land area & population.

Check out F8 / the big "V" on the bottom to see how close you are to
winning / losing.

I do note that a dead player is not eligbile to win via score, and in
addition, the culture of any wiped out player drops to 0.

In future games, I strongly sugest 0% luxaries for most of the game.
The slider is very inefficent compared to aquiring and trading for
luxary resources.

40% science slider is also very low for a peaceful player. That level
is much more apporatie for a war mongler. I more peaceful player should
generally have science as high as possible.

If your intending to win the game militarly, and already have a good
size land mass when the 3rd era comes around, I sugest going for
Communism and switching to it. It has communial corruption and in
addition under stock rules allows the SPHQ, which further reduces
corruption globally. The important thing under this govt is CH & PS
everywhere. If your corruption in cities without any of the P/FP/SPHQ
under communism have acceptable waste without a police station, I
sugest your empire isn't large enough, and you need to conquer more
cities. But also note that if you could actually reserach at a decent
rate under communism / SPHQ, your so close to winning via domination
you might as well finish conquering your neighbors.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

<snip>
> can we have a screenshot of your map? cos if you have that many cities on
> a
> standard map you must have really crunched them in, and have them
> overlapping like mad....
>
> --
> From Adam Webb, Overlag
> www.tacticalgamer.com
> CS:SOURCE server now active 😀

Adam,
They are crunched in and overlapping, especially in the outreaches. However,
in the core of my map, I still have plenty of spaces that are not being
worked. I have this thing about another civ coming in and plopping down a
city within 'my' territory, so I try to block that from happening by
building cities. Am I the only one that plays using that 'strategy'?
I'd be happy to post a screenshot, but I don't want to post one to this text
group. Any ideas on how I can best post a binary?
John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:39:26 GMT, John A. Mason <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> can we have a screenshot of your map? cos if you have that many cities on
>> a
>> standard map you must have really crunched them in, and have them
>> overlapping like mad....
>>
>> --
>> From Adam Webb, Overlag
>> www.tacticalgamer.com
>> CS:SOURCE server now active 😀
>
> Adam,
> They are crunched in and overlapping, especially in the outreaches. However,
> in the core of my map, I still have plenty of spaces that are not being
> worked. I have this thing about another civ coming in and plopping down a
> city within 'my' territory, so I try to block that from happening by
> building cities. Am I the only one that plays using that 'strategy'?

Pehaps. If you've got your colored ROI border not leaving gaps, you
don't _have_ a gap for them to plop down into. If there are gaps, build
libraries and/or temples early to get those gaps closed up. If you get
'em closed before they get boats, you're golden.

> I'd be happy to post a screenshot, but I don't want to post one to this text
> group. Any ideas on how I can best post a binary?

If you mail it to me (my address works) I'll post it on a website and post
the link here.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:42:02 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

>> of the cities are connected.
>>
>> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing
>> *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an
>> Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>>
>> Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>> past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions. I'm shocked that 50% of
>my revenue can be lost to corruption at the 'least' corrupt government
>level.

Well c'mon, you don't have any cops.

It also bothers me that the number of cities is intentionally limited
>to 'balance' the game. Land is value, is it not? Why should I be penalized
>for grabbing as much as I can...

Well, fundamentally it's to reflect the realities of taking over a
large part of the world. There's a reason why Britain divested itself
of most of it's empire, and it's because that gigantic colonial empire

was costing a fortune. However an efficient administration, which
yours is not, can minimise costs and maximise rewards.

I don't want to fight for it, but I *do*
>want to expand as fast as possible to control as much territory as possible.
>Is that an unreasonable 'real-world' tactic? For this game, I'm on a
>standard size map with roughly 2 large continents and a number of large
>islands and smaller islands. Germany is alone on one continent and England
>is sharing the large continent with me (but way behind, since I grabbed most
>of the land as fast as I could). The islands a scattered with a mix of a
>three civs.
>
>In general, I have been building the revenue producing city improvements....
>but I will revisit what I build, and when in future games. I will also build
>the Forbidden Palace sooner next time around. I have converted some of my
>population in some cities to policemen, but that's only good for 1
>commerce... not much when I might be losing 20 or 30 to corruption!
>
>For most of the game, my luxury slider has been at 10% and science at 40%.

Unlike it's relatives, in this the luxury slider is generally almost
useless. You very rarely realise a noticeable benefit from it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:39:26 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

><snip>
>> can we have a screenshot of your map? cos if you have that many cities on
>> a
>> standard map you must have really crunched them in, and have them
>> overlapping like mad....
>>
>> --
>> From Adam Webb, Overlag
>> www.tacticalgamer.com
>> CS:SOURCE server now active 😀
>
>Adam,
>They are crunched in and overlapping, especially in the outreaches. However,
>in the core of my map, I still have plenty of spaces that are not being
>worked. I have this thing about another civ coming in and plopping down a
>city within 'my' territory, so I try to block that from happening by
>building cities. Am I the only one that plays using that 'strategy'?

Possibly. Me, when I see rival civs coming in establish new cities
well within my territory, I send them a thank you note because,
surrounded by my older and more culturally powerful cities, the
chances are low that they will keep from seceding and even if they
don't, they'll be easy meat for my military cut off from
reinforcements.

>I'd be happy to post a screenshot, but I don't want to post one to this text
>group. Any ideas on how I can best post a binary?
>John
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> once tried to test me with:

> I'd be happy to post a screenshot, but I don't want to post one to
> this text group. Any ideas on how I can best post a binary?

You can just go to http://imageshack.us/ and upload an image and it will
tell you the link which you can cut and paste into your post.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>
> Pehaps. If you've got your colored ROI border not leaving gaps, you
> don't _have_ a gap for them to plop down into. If there are gaps, build
> libraries and/or temples early to get those gaps closed up. If you get
> 'em closed before they get boats, you're golden.
>
>> I'd be happy to post a screenshot, but I don't want to post one to this
>> text
>> group. Any ideas on how I can best post a binary?
>
> If you mail it to me (my address works) I'll post it on a website and post
> the link here.
>
> Dave

Thanks Dave. I've just sent the save game file to you.
As far as the gaps, I know I'm OK if my borders are connected. But the only
way to do that in early game is by plopping down cities fast. There's no way
to generate the culture necessary fast enough in early game to expand my
territory that way. And if the other civs are on the same continent as you,
then they are going to be hunting for land to expand also.
John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> Domination victory level is 66% of worlds land area + 66% of the worlds
> population.
>
> Cultural victory level is One City : 20K, Empire wide 100K on standard
> map, adjusted for different sizes, plus in addition double that of the
> second highest cultural.
>
> If the game hits 2050, what's going to matter is score for the tie
> breaker, which is heavily weighted towards land area & population.
>
I just lost this game in 2043, diplomatically as German and England both
voted against me in the UN. At that time, Germany had 110k culture, I had
86k. I was at 56% land area, and 52% population with Germany trailing at 34
and 33% respectively. Washington was the largest city on the map and had a
culture of 13.5k, the highest in the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> Thanks Dave. I've just sent the save game file to you.
> As far as the gaps, I know I'm OK if my borders are connected. But the
only
> way to do that in early game is by plopping down cities fast. There's no
way
> to generate the culture necessary fast enough in early game to expand my
> territory that way. And if the other civs are on the same continent as
you,
> then they are going to be hunting for land to expand also.
> John
>

why cant you build culture? temples or libraries dont take that long to
build, and they quickly increase the cultural boarders. Courthouses will
also quickly reduce your curruption issues, which will also allow you to
build your empire faster, as more production will go into working, and less
into curruption.

Democracy also has a problem with curruption when its far from the capital.
Comminisum has a level amount of curruption no matter how far away from the
capital the city is. For instance, in my current game as zulu's im on a
small island (capital and 7 cities) and the other 41 are on a skinny long
land mass.

With democracy, cities at the far tip of my empire take 70 turns to build a
library. With comminisum it drops dont to 20-40ish depending on other
improvements. The capital and the other 7 cities LOST production to
curruption, compared to democracy, but the improvements in the farther out
cities in my empire outwiegh the losses in my central cities.

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

>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14/02/2005

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:01:35 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>Well, anyone can tell you that "democracy" and "corruption" are far
>from mutually exclusive things.

I assume you mean that corruption can occur in a democracy. In real
life, democracies consistently have lower levels of corruption than
other forms of government. (And yes, that's coming from a
professional political scientist, and I could give you sources and
theory if you wanted, but the short reason is that open government
makes it easy to keep an eye on politicians.)

Scott Orr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:42:02 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

>
>I am playing 1.22 and also at Warlord level. I don't know how anyone
>succeeds at higher levels.

If you're seriously interested in this topic, visit a news archive and
look up some of the old threads (from a year or two ago, I think) on
winning at Diety level. It is doable (I've done it, I think, 4
times), though for every Diety game you win you probably start a dozen
you don't (and that's not even counting starting 20 games for each of
those dozen to get a good starting location).

Scott Orr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:23:54 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>>For most of the game, my luxury slider has been at 10% and science at 40%.
>
>Unlike it's relatives, in this the luxury slider is generally almost
>useless. You very rarely realise a noticeable benefit from it.

It depends on what level you're playing at and where you are in the
game. On Diety, I have to spend a decent amount keeping people happy
early in the game, because I'm too busy building new cities and then
fighting a war to build lots of improvements (and I don't typically
get more improvements available beyond temples until some cities have
gotten too big for temples to be enough). I also usually fight that
early war partly to get more luxuries--before that, I may only have
three or even two, which makes the marketplace a lot less useful.

Scott Orr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote in
news:rdvTd.6374$Ba3.5227@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> As far as the gaps, I know I'm OK if my borders are connected. But the
> only way to do that in early game is by plopping down cities fast.
> There's no way to generate the culture necessary fast enough in early
> game to expand my territory that way. And if the other civs are on the
> same continent as you, then they are going to be hunting for land to
> expand also.
>

Trying playing as Babylon -- cheap temples and libraries. Also forget about
trying to build any wonders in the Ancient age. Focus your research on the
technologies you really need ie. to get temples, libraries, grannry, etc.

data64

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:23:54 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
> >>For most of the game, my luxury slider has been at 10% and science at 40%.
> >
> >Unlike it's relatives, in this the luxury slider is generally almost
> >useless. You very rarely realise a noticeable benefit from it.
>

The luxury slider can make the difference between building a wonder in
12 turns (30% luxury) or 15 turns (0% luxury) in your most productive
big city (population more than 16).

I try to get a Great Leader and rush build the Forbidden Palace as early
as I can to reduce corruption. Later on, a lot of cities that are far
away from the Capital and Forbidden Palace make the Communist form of
government look pretty good until I get Court Houses and Police Stations
in every city.

Cliff Nelson

Dry your tears, there's more fun for your ears,
"Forward Into The Past" 2 PM to 5 PM, Sundays,
California time, at: http://www.kspc.org/

Don't be a square or a blockhead; see:
http://users.adelphia.net/~cnelson9/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>
> why cant you build culture? temples or libraries dont take that long to
> build, and they quickly increase the cultural boarders. Courthouses will
> also quickly reduce your curruption issues, which will also allow you to
> build your empire faster, as more production will go into working, and
> less
> into curruption.
>
> Democracy also has a problem with curruption when its far from the
> capital.
> Comminisum has a level amount of curruption no matter how far away from
> the
> capital the city is. For instance, in my current game as zulu's im on a
> small island (capital and 7 cities) and the other 41 are on a skinny long
> land mass.
>
> With democracy, cities at the far tip of my empire take 70 turns to build
> a
> library. With comminisum it drops dont to 20-40ish depending on other
> improvements. The capital and the other 7 cities LOST production to
> curruption, compared to democracy, but the improvements in the farther out
> cities in my empire outwiegh the losses in my central cities.
>
Adam,
I always build temples as soon as possible, and libraries also. Perhaps I
could start building courthouses sooner. But if you spread your cities out,
so as not to exceed the 'optimal' city count, as one poster mentioned, then
there is no way you are going to cover all of the land you are on within
your borders waiting on culture to expand your borders.
That long land mass must not be *too* skinny if you have 41 cities on it
<g>.
John