Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:51:54 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>I always want to stock up my defences like you say, but I just can never
>afford to really. it seems quite strange as when it comes to the modern
>era, or there abouts, it seems I can afford a larger military, but before
>then, if I try to have a few military units, I find it very hard to keep
>funding science and happyness (not sure how to refer to that one!). Even in
>modern times, money can sometimes be a problem. How is it you afford to
>keep a big army (to keep for defence, not just one you create before going
>to war - I can create a big army for when I want war, as I can usually rush
>out tanks in 3 turns or what not, but to have them there permanently is a
>problem (or any unit, not just tanks)).

When I am at war keep all cities but the ones in the war zone weakly
defended. I need a few around in case a ship drops off some troops.
If you still don't have enough then you must be doing something wrong.
You need lots of roads to get your gold. Make sure you are not
overpaying for research each turn. Consider buying or trading tech
with another civ rather than researching it yourself. Don't worry
about being the leader in tech. The more people that know a tech the
cheaper it gets. So trying to stay in front will just cost you more
money.

My strategy is to focus heavily on highly productive cities. Than I
can get the troops quickly if I need them. During war only my weakest
cities build something other than troops. Sometimes I slide my tech
way back so can afford some upgrades.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:59:19 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Yes, good plan. I was going to try to do that the other day, but I think
>the game was a bit buggy for some reason, and the advisor screen saying who
>was at war with whom was not showing any red lines when it should have done
>(I didn't want to go to war unless someone else was at war with that civ, so
>I wouldn't get beat up...I didn't have a great defense at the time).
>
>Hmm, that problem happened after I installed the patch (v1.22 for
>conquests). Have you had that problem? I'm hoping it was a one off!

You need an embassy. Also you can't get an alliance unless one of you
is already at war. They AI may also refuse if they have trades going
with the other civ. So starting the war yourself first can sometimes
be tough to get allies. Sometimes the AI will be at war and ask for
alliance and then declare peace the next turn. The alliance is broken
but you cannot make peace until the other civ cools down enough to
talk to you.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:02:36 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>> In my only try at Emperor I had started out surrounded by Arabs,
>> Germany, and China. On the other side of China was the Moguls and
>> Russia. That was in no means a peaceful game. I stayed away from
>> Germany long enough for them to piss off everyone else. Arabs took
>> most of Germanies cities, then China took them from Arabia. After all
>> that warring I had hoped Arabia was weakened a bit. I Iucked out that
>> one square divided our two nations. My first attack was to strongly
>> fortify that one square.
>
>Sounds like an interesting game! How did it go in the end?

Well China got really huge and powerful after taken the Germany cities
from Arabia. I took out Arabia which took a long time but helped me
get stronger. By the end of the war my forces where spread thin but I
was starting to build railroads so I could move around fairly quickly.
China attacked me since both the Monguls and Russia where large and
strong. I bribed everyone agains't China and took most of their
cities after many years. Then Russia and I split up Mongolia. I
think the last war agains't Russia might have gone nuclear. Oh yeah
and China had so much culture their cities kept flipping on me before
the war was over.

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c62vcb$51o$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> P12 wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:10:36 +0100, "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I never really use artillery really. I think I should start
> >> doing so. So if I attack their cities, they will retreat back to the
> >> city? problem is though, what if they batter me, and then come and
> >> attack my cities? I always want to try to call a truce at this
> >> point, but they normally won't listen
> >
> > When I am up agains't a stronger opponent I load all my border cities
> > with both defensive and offensive units. I save my costly mobile
> > units to attack weak stray units within my territory. I use cheap
> > attack units like long bowman to attack on coming stacks. Since the
> > cities are highly defended I don't mind letting them attack a few
> > times and even blow out terrain improvements. My foot attack units
> > will stay within the city and attack all but the last unit. You will
> > need barracks so they can heal up. Then sometimes I use a mobile unit
> > to take out the last attacking unit and retreat to the city.
> >
> > Sooner or later the on coming forces will thin out. At that point
> > you can start the offensive if you are still strong.
>
> I always want to stock up my defences like you say, but I just can never
> afford to really. it seems quite strange as when it comes to the modern
> era, or there abouts, it seems I can afford a larger military, but before
> then, if I try to have a few military units, I find it very hard to keep
> funding science and happyness (not sure how to refer to that one!). Even
in
> modern times, money can sometimes be a problem. How is it you afford to
> keep a big army (to keep for defence, not just one you create before going
> to war - I can create a big army for when I want war, as I can usually
rush
> out tanks in 3 turns or what not, but to have them there permanently is a
> problem (or any unit, not just tanks)).

Build lots of towns and cities to get the free support. Don't worry about
spacing them optimally, you don't get to use most of the tiles until after
hospitals anyway which comes late in the game.

Don't build too many temples and colloseums... rely on marketplace +
luxuries for happiness.

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6308n$5nc$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

<snippage>

>
> ahh, I see. yes, it is annoying when they hang about your area. It's
even
> more annoying when they just beat you to building a city in an area you
had
> been eyeing up and were just sending your settler too as well!

There is an unproven theory that the AI knows where your unit is going if
you give it a goto command. Since i have stopped using that and move them
manually each turn, I seem to get more 'good' city locations.

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c62v3l$4qu$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>
>>> It'll depend on the situation, naturally, but once I'm in Republic
>>> or Democracy I like short wars that I control. If you have the
>>> luxuries you can naturally ride out a good 20 year war, but unless
>>> you have a goal that'll require that long to take you're spending
>>> shields on units instead of wonders and city improvements (rushing
>>> temples also costs gold. ALWAYS rush a temple, as the culture will
>>> grab more land and make movement easier). The key is to be ready
>>> for war ahead of time. You can tell when the enemy is getting ready
>>> to strike, so move in forces to jumping off places and pick your
>>> objectives. Don't extend yourself, and defend your wounded as the
>>> AI likes to pick them off. Sea invasion can capture cities too far
>>> away to otherwise get, but make sure it's a large force... landing
>>> it after their main army is inside your territory helps
>>
>> yes, more good ideas! yes, I want to try to divide the enemy
>> troops, but have usually done this through allies attacking. I
>> sometimes find it hard to get a good sea fleet going, as the enemy
>> seems to have quite a big one itself, so the same problem arises
>> really. Obviously having the ships all stocked and ready with
>> soldiers right near the enemy territory would be the best be there
>> to stop this.
>>
> While you're at peace, look at the map and decide what you'd do if any
> particular nation attacked you. What you'd like to capture, how you'd
> do it, etc. Build transports and place them where you need them,
> building new roads if the shortest distance between your land and the
> invation spot is undeveloped. You'll need some ships to protect the
> transports, but I tend to skimp on these myself. The AI likes bombard
> units like ironclads, and they'll tend to be hanging around your
> important sea coast and not the invation area The key to a good sea
> invation is to a) land a good sized force with defensive units right
> next to a city (with a harbor to help with happiness and give you
> whatever resource you're attacking for, although the harbor might be
> destroyed in the attack), b) keep a steady supply of new troops
> flowing in, preferably with transports able to make a round trip in 2
> turns or so, c) starve captured cities down to lessen the chance of
> them flipping back to the enemy, and d) don't overextend yourself! The
> temptation to make a run for that large city with a wonder will be
> great, but if all you really need is those two cities with spices just
> take and hold them. There'll be time to take more in the next war,
> after you've rebuilt.

yes, it is always tempting to keep going and attacking, I have to admit! I
usually always attack using force over tactic, so I think in future I'll
defintely have to try to plan it out a bit more. just like you say.
Definitely taking more advantage of boats and transporting troops!

 

[contro]

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

The Stare wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c62vcb$51o$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> P12 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:10:36 +0100, "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I never really use artillery really. I think I should start
>>>> doing so. So if I attack their cities, they will retreat back to
>>>> the city? problem is though, what if they batter me, and then
>>>> come and attack my cities? I always want to try to call a truce
>>>> at this point, but they normally won't listen
>>>
>>> When I am up agains't a stronger opponent I load all my border
>>> cities with both defensive and offensive units. I save my costly
>>> mobile units to attack weak stray units within my territory. I
>>> use cheap attack units like long bowman to attack on coming stacks.
>>> Since the cities are highly defended I don't mind letting them
>>> attack a few times and even blow out terrain improvements. My foot
>>> attack units will stay within the city and attack all but the last
>>> unit. You will need barracks so they can heal up. Then sometimes
>>> I use a mobile unit to take out the last attacking unit and retreat
>>> to the city.
>>>
>>> Sooner or later the on coming forces will thin out. At that point
>>> you can start the offensive if you are still strong.
>>
>> I always want to stock up my defences like you say, but I just can
>> never afford to really. it seems quite strange as when it comes to
>> the modern era, or there abouts, it seems I can afford a larger
>> military, but before then, if I try to have a few military units, I
>> find it very hard to keep funding science and happyness (not sure
>> how to refer to that one!). Even in modern times, money can
>> sometimes be a problem. How is it you afford to keep a big army (to
>> keep for defence, not just one you create before going to war - I
>> can create a big army for when I want war, as I can usually rush out
>> tanks in 3 turns or what not, but to have them there permanently is
>> a problem (or any unit, not just tanks)).
>
> Build lots of towns and cities to get the free support. Don't worry
> about spacing them optimally, you don't get to use most of the tiles
> until after hospitals anyway which comes late in the game.
>

Yes, I usually do try to do that. As close together without any overlap
anyway. the problem I always have though is that I plan it all out, and
then the computer comes and nicks a key spot! Drives me mad! I guess I
have to wait until later to try to get it off them, but it's annoying when
they become too powerful or what not.

> Don't build too many temples and colloseums... rely on marketplace +
> luxuries for happiness.

yes, I noticed how well the marketplace can make people happy if you have a
lot of resources! I was quite surprised, as I didn't know about the extent
of it until the other week! But surely it would be a good idea to build
temples and colloseums too though? What disadvantage would it bring if I
did make them, other than time?

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:51:54 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> I always want to stock up my defences like you say, but I just can
>> never afford to really. it seems quite strange as when it comes to
>> the modern era, or there abouts, it seems I can afford a larger
>> military, but before then, if I try to have a few military units, I
>> find it very hard to keep funding science and happyness (not sure
>> how to refer to that one!). Even in modern times, money can
>> sometimes be a problem. How is it you afford to keep a big army (to
>> keep for defence, not just one you create before going to war - I
>> can create a big army for when I want war, as I can usually rush out
>> tanks in 3 turns or what not, but to have them there permanently is
>> a problem (or any unit, not just tanks)).
>
> When I am at war keep all cities but the ones in the war zone weakly
> defended. I need a few around in case a ship drops off some troops.
> If you still don't have enough then you must be doing something wrong.

Yes, I always try to keep all cities with one or two units in, depending on
the city. In my current game I'm just low on gold really...so it's hard to
keep my units updated. Might be easier to just create new units, and get
rid of the old, outdated ones!

> You need lots of roads to get your gold. Make sure you are not
> overpaying for research each turn. Consider buying or trading tech
> with another civ rather than researching it yourself. Don't worry
> about being the leader in tech. The more people that know a tech the
> cheaper it gets. So trying to stay in front will just cost you more
> money.
>

The reason I sometimes try to stay in front is because I don't have enough
gold to just buy techs, so by getting ones the computer doesn't have, I can
trade. The computer sometimes seems to go for certain techs before others
(not that I try to go for ones the computer doesn't have, as I usually go
for the hygene ones for instance), so if 3 computer civs each have 3 techs
that you don't have, you can trade a single tech with each of them to get
the three techs. And if you trade the same one with each of them, it means
they can't trade any new techs between themselves, and so you should end up
with more techs! That's how I plan anyway. I don't know if it always works
LOL

> My strategy is to focus heavily on highly productive cities. Than I
> can get the troops quickly if I need them. During war only my weakest
> cities build something other than troops. Sometimes I slide my tech
> way back so can afford some upgrades.

I think you have a very different style than the one I normally use in
regards to the spending of your money! But to be honest, I'm not completely
sure on the robustness of my strategy yet LOL But as I know more about the
game, I'll be able to see where it goes wrong (if indeed it does!). I
usually find my weaker cites take too long to produce troops, so normally
have to keep them building city improvements whilst the bigger cities churn
out the armies to keep the war effort going

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c62vil$e8e$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>>
>> Don't you have to be careful about your artillery being stolen
>> though, as what with roads and the like, plus the baddies having
>> fast moving units like cavalry, doesn't that cause a problem?
>
> I protect my Artillery stacks with 2 or 3 Infantry. It seems to be
> enough.
> This allows me to use their range more effectively. Once I start
> using Tanks
> the Artillery has a hard time keeping up.

Yes, I found that with the artillery not being able to keep up with the
tanks (and it being tempting to leave them behind or start attacking as soon
as you can!). I was thinking of backing up my tanks with an infantry unit
(or mobile infantry, more realistically, since they can keep up, but
infantry if possible), so then the tanks can be easily defended when
attacked, and can attack well too. But it's always manageing to do this, as
I normally need to churn out loads of tanks to keep attacking. I think
though if I did bring out some defensive units, I certainly wouldn't, or
shouldn't, need to build as many tanks as I do.

>
>> I take it you could have them on the same square as the tank or what
>> not, and it wouldn't really make much difference?
>
> I like to keep mine separate. I use the J key to move stacks of
> units and it
> helps if the Artillery units are not stacked with everything else.

I never knew about this way of moving stacks of units! J key you say?! how
does that work, you just press j and it allows you to move all the units on
one tile?

>
>> The advantage of artillery that seems attractive to me is the way
>> they fire at the baddies when they attack units on the same square.
>
> _All_ bombard units do that, even Catapults.

Oh yes, I know, I should have said bombard units. But it seems that the
earlier bombard units just don't have much power.

When the enemy moves
> next to
> your city you bombard him. When he attacks the bombard units get to
> fire
> again.

I think I definitely have to look into them more. Mind you, there are a lot
of units I've not really used yet! Especially all those that become
available with rocketry, or just about there.

>
>> Just a shame that only one of them does so, and not all of the ones
>> on that square! Although I guess that might be a little unfair if
>> they did.
>
> One bombard unit fires for each attack until they have all fired
> once. If
> they all fired at each attacker there would be no offence left. 🙂
>
>

LOL yes, exactly!

 

[contro]

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

GWB wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c62vm9$du4$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> P12 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:20:21 +0100, "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> have never really bothered to make
>>>> bombers or artillery before....I've probably made less than 10
>>>> combined in all my games! LOL but well, I'll see how it goes. I
>>>> think I'll keep trying to do it the way I normally would, and if it
>>>> jsut doesn't work for me, I'll then change to the method you
>>>> mention.
>>>
>>> Ah but it is so much fun to blow out every terrain improvement in
>>> the city.
>>
>> LOL yes, I really must give it a go. I do like the idea of
>> battering a city by way of denying it food, and destroying city
>> improvements in and out of the city. But obviously gives you more
>> work to do when you take it over. but it is fun!
>
> One tactic to use, before you are ready to invade an enemy continent,
> is plop down a stack of infantry and artillery on a mountain top
> (wait until you have battlefield medicine so your defenders can heal)
> on the enemy coast, and blow every terrain improvement you can, pound
> every city in range. Pull 'em out, move them down the coast, and
> repeat.
>
> GWB

That isn't a bad idea at all! What I really like is when you take over a
city, all your workers spring to action, improving the land that you have
just taken over.

But yes, I'll definitely have a go at that tactic!

 

[contro]

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

Wintermute wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:59:19 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> P12 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:35:03 +0100, "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm currently on Regent too. Not easy though, as I've had no
>>>> wars, but only because I've been paying off the other nations to
>>>> leave me alone. However, I'm catching up now with the techs, so am
>>>> going to try to get a space race victory...but not sure I will. it
>>>> is my first game on Regent though, so I can't expect to win
>>>> straight away.
>>>>
>>>> Horrible thing is though, is the size of the other nations armies!
>>>> I've no idea how they get them to be that big, but basically I just
>>>> don't think I could win a war with them! They just have far too
>>>> many troops! I guess I'd have to negociate a deal between
>>>> countries to get some allies on my side, but even then it would be
>>>> hard.
>>>
>>> You can wear them down by starting a war with a civ that borders
>>> them. If your ally is between them and you than you don't even have
>>> to fight. Then once your ally is beat down you can declare peace
>>> and attack your ally.
>>
>> Yes, good plan. I was going to try to do that the other day, but I
>> think the game was a bit buggy for some reason, and the advisor
>> screen saying who was at war with whom was not showing any red lines
>> when it should have done (I didn't want to go to war unless someone
>> else was at war with that civ, so I wouldn't get beat up...I didn't
>> have a great defense at the time).
>>
>> Hmm, that problem happened after I installed the patch (v1.22 for
>> conquests). Have you had that problem? I'm hoping it was a one off!
>>
>
> Did you have an embassy with him? You need it in order to see that
> info.

LOL ahh, yes, I think that was my problem LOL I only had one embassy in
that game, as I didn't have much money. So I saw that some wars were
appearing on the foreign advisor page, but not ones that I knew should be
there, so I thought it must have been a fault. I didn't realise it was the
embassy creation that enabled the wars to be seen on that screen. I think I
did read about that a while back, but had just forgot!

Thanks for that! It's always something simple isn't it?!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:59:19 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, good plan. I was going to try to do that the other day, but I
>> think the game was a bit buggy for some reason, and the advisor
>> screen saying who was at war with whom was not showing any red lines
>> when it should have done (I didn't want to go to war unless someone
>> else was at war with that civ, so I wouldn't get beat up...I didn't
>> have a great defense at the time).
>>
>> Hmm, that problem happened after I installed the patch (v1.22 for
>> conquests). Have you had that problem? I'm hoping it was a one off!
>
> You need an embassy.

LOL yes, that was the problem. I only had one in that game, so some wars
were showing, whilst some weren't, and as a result, I thought something was
wrong. Thanks for that!

Also you can't get an alliance unless one of you
> is already at war. They AI may also refuse if they have trades going
> with the other civ. So starting the war yourself first can sometimes
> be tough to get allies. Sometimes the AI will be at war and ask for
> alliance and then declare peace the next turn. The alliance is broken
> but you cannot make peace until the other civ cools down enough to
> talk to you.

ahh, that does explain why they might not want wars when I ask them
sometimes! But yes, I'm always a bit unsure about allying with the computer
when they ask. Usually because I'm a democracy, so can't just go to war,
otherwise everywhere will revolt!

Does the computer "think less" of you if you are at war, and you ask them
for a MPP, rather than a straight alliance against the country you are at
war with? I've done this before, and had no problem, with the computer even
going to be Gracious towards me! But obviously, I do it with no real
intention of coming to their aid if they go to war with someone else.

 

[contro]

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

GWB wrote:
> "Ambarish" <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote in message
> news:c60r6g$qek$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>> In article <qQRgc.166181$w54.1118509@attbi_s01>, GWB wrote:
>> One thing people tend to forget in these discussions is the start
>> position. For instance, to me, Regent -> Monarch was a big leap, and
>> I won Monarch only on my third try. Looking back, I attribute it to
>> difficult maps. Monarch -> Emperor, OTOH, was very easy for me,
>> because in my first 2 Emperor games, I had excellent start
>> positions. For instance, Trondheim, on an occasion has no less than
>> 3 plains cattle.
>
> Yeah I think I've won an Emperor game once, due to such an excellent
> starting position there was no way I could lose . I really haven't
> tried that many games at that level though.
>
>> Of course, Emperor -> Deity *is* a huge leap, simply because of the
>> way the bonuses work. 100 -> 90 and 90 -> 80 are comparable, but 80
>> -> 60 is much worse.
>>
>> Lastly, I don't quite understand this emphasis on "fairness",
>> whatever it means. Although Regent might be "fair" in one sense of
>> the word, the AI is so bad there's no way it's fair. The AI doesn't
>> *pre-build*, for heaven's sake. In any case, I don't see what's
>> wrong in graduating to Emperor and Deity once you've become good
>> enough at Monarch you're confident of winning just about every game.
>
> Yeah I always laugh when someone complains about the game being
> "unfair". That is essentially meaningless...the AI either gets
> bonuses or doesn't get bonuses. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

LOL well I don't really have a problem with a game being "unfair" as long
as it's still fun to play. The problem I'm worried with is if the game gets
to a point, because of the difficulty level or what not, that you can only
really win by following a set route and tactic, or that you have to use
underhand tactics to win (such as exploiting the bad AI and what not). I
think that is what people mean when they feel the game is unfair, as it
might have that sort of effect on the game.

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:02:36 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>>> In my only try at Emperor I had started out surrounded by Arabs,
>>> Germany, and China. On the other side of China was the Moguls and
>>> Russia. That was in no means a peaceful game. I stayed away from
>>> Germany long enough for them to piss off everyone else. Arabs took
>>> most of Germanies cities, then China took them from Arabia. After
>>> all that warring I had hoped Arabia was weakened a bit. I Iucked
>>> out that one square divided our two nations. My first attack was
>>> to strongly fortify that one square.
>>
>> Sounds like an interesting game! How did it go in the end?
>
> Well China got really huge and powerful after taken the Germany cities
> from Arabia. I took out Arabia which took a long time but helped me
> get stronger. By the end of the war my forces where spread thin but I
> was starting to build railroads so I could move around fairly quickly.
> China attacked me since both the Monguls and Russia where large and
> strong. I bribed everyone agains't China and took most of their
> cities after many years. Then Russia and I split up Mongolia. I
> think the last war agains't Russia might have gone nuclear. Oh yeah
> and China had so much culture their cities kept flipping on me before
> the war was over.

does sound like a fun and involving game! I've never had a nuclear war in
civ before. Does the whole community go against you as soon as you fire a
nuclear missile? I thought how good a way of winning a war it would be if
you could fire multiple nukes at once at the opponents cities, making it
impossible for them to function, so you can mop them all up with your normal
units. Might try that one day!

 

[contro]

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

The Stare wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c6308n$5nc$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> <snippage>
>
>>
>> ahh, I see. yes, it is annoying when they hang about your area.
>> It's even more annoying when they just beat you to building a city
>> in an area you had been eyeing up and were just sending your settler
>> too as well!
>
> There is an unproven theory that the AI knows where your unit is
> going if you give it a goto command. Since i have stopped using that
> and move them manually each turn, I seem to get more 'good' city
> locations.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case to be honest. If the computer
knows what units you have in your cities, it makes sense to think that it
can also know the final position you select for your units. I guess a good
tactic would be to select a final position for your units to move to, and
then change that when they are halfway there, or something like that!
Although obviously, it will be hard to know the extent to which this would
help.

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c65k4n$g27$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Stare wrote:
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c62vcb$51o$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> P12 wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:10:36 +0100, "Contro"
> >>>
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, I never really use artillery really. I think I should start
> >>>> doing so. So if I attack their cities, they will retreat back to
> >>>> the city? problem is though, what if they batter me, and then
> >>>> come and attack my cities? I always want to try to call a truce
> >>>> at this point, but they normally won't listen
> >>>
> >>> When I am up agains't a stronger opponent I load all my border
> >>> cities with both defensive and offensive units. I save my costly
> >>> mobile units to attack weak stray units within my territory. I
> >>> use cheap attack units like long bowman to attack on coming stacks.
> >>> Since the cities are highly defended I don't mind letting them
> >>> attack a few times and even blow out terrain improvements. My foot
> >>> attack units will stay within the city and attack all but the last
> >>> unit. You will need barracks so they can heal up. Then sometimes
> >>> I use a mobile unit to take out the last attacking unit and retreat
> >>> to the city.
> >>>
> >>> Sooner or later the on coming forces will thin out. At that point
> >>> you can start the offensive if you are still strong.
> >>
> >> I always want to stock up my defences like you say, but I just can
> >> never afford to really. it seems quite strange as when it comes to
> >> the modern era, or there abouts, it seems I can afford a larger
> >> military, but before then, if I try to have a few military units, I
> >> find it very hard to keep funding science and happyness (not sure
> >> how to refer to that one!). Even in modern times, money can
> >> sometimes be a problem. How is it you afford to keep a big army (to
> >> keep for defence, not just one you create before going to war - I
> >> can create a big army for when I want war, as I can usually rush out
> >> tanks in 3 turns or what not, but to have them there permanently is
> >> a problem (or any unit, not just tanks)).
> >
> > Build lots of towns and cities to get the free support. Don't worry
> > about spacing them optimally, you don't get to use most of the tiles
> > until after hospitals anyway which comes late in the game.
> >
>
> Yes, I usually do try to do that. As close together without any overlap
> anyway. the problem I always have though is that I plan it all out, and
> then the computer comes and nicks a key spot! Drives me mad! I guess I
> have to wait until later to try to get it off them, but it's annoying when
> they become too powerful or what not.
>
> > Don't build too many temples and colloseums... rely on marketplace +
> > luxuries for happiness.
>
> yes, I noticed how well the marketplace can make people happy if you have
a
> lot of resources! I was quite surprised, as I didn't know about the
extent
> of it until the other week! But surely it would be a good idea to build
> temples and colloseums too though? What disadvantage would it bring if I
> did make them, other than time?

It depends what civ you play, but as a rule you should build library,
marketplace, courthouse if needed. For every uneeded temple you could be
supporting one more unit. Colloseum = 2 units. Not to mention how many units
you could have built instead of the expensive colloseum. If
scientific/non-religious civ, then a library is cheaper to build anyway. I
only build a very few temples early game in cities which i wish to grow that
extra pop point. The rest are building settlers/workers when they get
unhappy. Settlers/workers are your early game investment in the future.

If you are worried about falling behind in culture, go to war and have more
cities that have more libraries.

If not at war, the AI as a rule, will build library/university/marketplace
in that order. I personally prefer building the marketplace prior to the
university.

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c65kuj$gnm$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

> I never knew about this way of moving stacks of units! J key you say?!
how
> does that work, you just press j and it allows you to move all the units
on
> one tile?

I seem to remember you have conquests. On top of the status window, there
are 4 buttons. 1 is 'move all units of same type' and the other is 'move all
units'. It works like a GoTo command but you have to be careful about having
one or more units with partial movement points left.

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c65l6b$h72$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> I only had one embassy in
> that game, as I didn't have much money.

I make establishing embassies my first and highest priority for early game
gold. I even save up for them. The ai will seldom establish one with you so
it leaves you to do it. Note the cost is mostly dependant on distance to the
other capital.

Having an embassy allows you to know more about what is happening in the
world. Not to mention the alliance ability you will need to keep one ai off
your back while you fight another.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:12:18 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Mike Garcia wrote:
>> In article <c62vil$e8e$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't you have to be careful about your artillery being stolen
>>> though, as what with roads and the like, plus the baddies having
>>> fast moving units like cavalry, doesn't that cause a problem?
>>
>> I protect my Artillery stacks with 2 or 3 Infantry. It seems to be
>> enough.
>> This allows me to use their range more effectively. Once I start
>> using Tanks
>> the Artillery has a hard time keeping up.
>
>Yes, I found that with the artillery not being able to keep up with the
>tanks (and it being tempting to leave them behind or start attacking as soon
>as you can!).

The bombardment units seem to fit in between the attack units, as
far as the optimal time to deploy them. Catapults are wimpy hitters
but are the only early bombardment unit, and the only thing which can
be used to soften up really hard targets.

But usually the AI doesn't have really tough defenders -- but there
are exceptions. A few catapults in a key city are great on defense,
because knocking off a hit point can make the difference between
winning the fight -- against a good enemy attacker -- and losing a
unit. If you don't lose units, you won't lose the city.

Same goes for later units of course, but they have a much better
chance of hurting someone ;-)

Cannon and artillery add a useful bit of hammering to make knights
vs. musketman and cavalry vs. infantry fights feasible. They can't
keep up with the fast attackers, but that's OK. In fact, artillery
plus infantry can attack all on its own, slow, but not ineffective.

Once you get to tanks, though, it is hard to use artillery -- even
radar artillery -- and keep up. But if you have any stalled
offensives, or a defensive position to hold, they are nice to have
around.

Also, if you *want* to reduce the enemy population, they are
wonderful.

> I was thinking of backing up my tanks with an infantry unit
>(or mobile infantry, more realistically, since they can keep up, but
>infantry if possible), so then the tanks can be easily defended when
>attacked, and can attack well too. But it's always manageing to do this, as
>I normally need to churn out loads of tanks to keep attacking. I think
>though if I did bring out some defensive units, I certainly wouldn't, or
>shouldn't, need to build as many tanks as I do.

If you go all offensive, it is nice *if* you can avoid taking
losses. Fine on the attack, but the enemy will counterattack -- which
means a fine place for whatever defense units you have, including
artillery stacks.


>>> The advantage of artillery that seems attractive to me is the way
>>> they fire at the baddies when they attack units on the same square.
>>
>> _All_ bombard units do that, even Catapults.
>
>Oh yes, I know, I should have said bombard units. But it seems that the
>earlier bombard units just don't have much power.
>
>When the enemy moves
>> next to
>> your city you bombard him. When he attacks the bombard units get to
>> fire
>> again.
>
>I think I definitely have to look into them more. Mind you, there are a lot
>of units I've not really used yet! Especially all those that become
>available with rocketry, or just about there.

Usually, the late game units are past most wars -- or the successful
space race -- so they don't get used too much. Stealth bombers in
quantity can be quite nice though.



--
*-__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?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c65lc5$h23$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> P12 wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:59:19 +0100, "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, good plan. I was going to try to do that the other day, but I
> >> think the game was a bit buggy for some reason, and the advisor
> >> screen saying who was at war with whom was not showing any red lines
> >> when it should have done (I didn't want to go to war unless someone
> >> else was at war with that civ, so I wouldn't get beat up...I didn't
> >> have a great defense at the time).
> >>
> >> Hmm, that problem happened after I installed the patch (v1.22 for
> >> conquests). Have you had that problem? I'm hoping it was a one off!
> >
> > You need an embassy.
>
> LOL yes, that was the problem. I only had one in that game, so some wars
> were showing, whilst some weren't, and as a result, I thought something
was
> wrong. Thanks for that!
>
> Also you can't get an alliance unless one of you
> > is already at war. They AI may also refuse if they have trades going
> > with the other civ. So starting the war yourself first can sometimes
> > be tough to get allies. Sometimes the AI will be at war and ask for
> > alliance and then declare peace the next turn. The alliance is broken
> > but you cannot make peace until the other civ cools down enough to
> > talk to you.
>
> ahh, that does explain why they might not want wars when I ask them
> sometimes! But yes, I'm always a bit unsure about allying with the
computer
> when they ask. Usually because I'm a democracy, so can't just go to war,
> otherwise everywhere will revolt!
>
> Does the computer "think less" of you if you are at war, and you ask them
> for a MPP, rather than a straight alliance against the country you are at
> war with? I've done this before, and had no problem, with the computer
even
> going to be Gracious towards me! But obviously, I do it with no real
> intention of coming to their aid if they go to war with someone else.

Lots of things affect attitude. Having an embassy will give an improvement.
Being at war with a mutual enemy will be a temporary improvement. An MPP
should only be agreed to under very few conditions. If the other civ goes to
war and is attacked, you have no choice but to declare war (the game
declares war for you).

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
om> wrote in news:c65k4n$g27$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:

> The Stare wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Build lots of towns and cities to get the free support. Don't
>> worry about spacing them optimally, you don't get to use most of
>> the tiles until after hospitals anyway which comes late in the
>> game.
>
> Yes, I usually do try to do that. As close together without any
> overlap anyway. the problem I always have though is that I plan
> it all out, and then the computer comes and nicks a key spot!
> Drives me mad! I guess I have to wait until later to try to get
> it off them, but it's annoying when they become too powerful or
> what not.

A little overlap in the beginning is what you want if you are
playing to win. If you overlap correctly, you won't need culture
buildings to expand your borders. And many of the city tiles aren't
used by a single city until hospitals are built.
Culture can be key to getting those spots that the computer nicks
from you. Either high culture in a city placed right beside the
computer city. Or, what I prefer, is to backfill some of my area.
Once you find the computer player you plop a city (build culture) down
over there. If he builds a new city in your sweet spot it will be
within your territory and you'll be more likely to culture flip it to
your side.

--
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 (More info?)

"The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in
news:r8zhc.2137$MK2.523@news02.roc.ny:

[snip]
>
> An MPP should only be agreed to under very few
> conditions. If the other civ goes to war and is attacked, you have
> no choice but to declare war (the game declares war for you).

MPP's should only be made when you are going to use it to drag your
"ally" into a war. IMO.

--
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 (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:23:34 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>does sound like a fun and involving game! I've never had a nuclear war in
>civ before. Does the whole community go against you as soon as you fire a
>nuclear missile? I thought how good a way of winning a war it would be if
>you could fire multiple nukes at once at the opponents cities, making it
>impossible for them to function, so you can mop them all up with your normal
>units. Might try that one day!

They generally will declare war and fire any nukes they have at you if
you perform a first strike. But that isn't always the case. Their
attitude toward the civ you attack may make difference. I have had
nuke wars with 30+ nukes each.

You can nuke a city multiple times. Great Wonders and nukes are not
destroyed so they can nuke back. Population gets cut in half each
time. Additional improvements and units are destroyed each time. If
you move in quickly with a couple modern armor you can take or destroy
the city fairly easily. The pollution is so bad the cities are not
worth keeping. Once you take the city and borders collapse there will
not be any food to support a population.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:19:32 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Does the computer "think less" of you if you are at war, and you ask them
>for a MPP, rather than a straight alliance against the country you are at
>war with? I've done this before, and had no problem, with the computer even
>going to be Gracious towards me! But obviously, I do it with no real
>intention of coming to their aid if they go to war with someone else.

I have had them cancel MPP's immdiately after I declared war. They
also seem to want more if you are already at war with a strong enemy.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:06:49 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Yes, I always try to keep all cities with one or two units in, depending on
>the city. In my current game I'm just low on gold really...so it's hard to
>keep my units updated. Might be easier to just create new units, and get
>rid of the old, outdated ones!

Then disband the old units in low production cities. You will get a
few shield back toward its production. Sometimes the cost of upgrade
isn't worth the price. But if you are war and there are no critical
techs to research then moving the slider back a few turns can help
with upgrades.

>The reason I sometimes try to stay in front is because I don't have enough
>gold to just buy techs, so by getting ones the computer doesn't have, I can
>trade. The computer sometimes seems to go for certain techs before others
>(not that I try to go for ones the computer doesn't have, as I usually go
>for the hygene ones for instance), so if 3 computer civs each have 3 techs
>that you don't have, you can trade a single tech with each of them to get
>the three techs. And if you trade the same one with each of them, it means
>they can't trade any new techs between themselves, and so you should end up
>with more techs! That's how I plan anyway. I don't know if it always works
>LOL

Trading like that is great. But you can also buy a tech for gold per
turn. This also helps protect you from an attack because they would
loose all that gold. You can also buy a tech you are already
researching at a discounted price. So if you don't have enough gold
right away you may after a few turns of research. Just don't bother
buying techs they overprice like ones with governments. In those
cases I find research is cheaper than buying second hand.

>I think you have a very different style than the one I normally use in
>regards to the spending of your money! But to be honest, I'm not completely
>sure on the robustness of my strategy yet LOL But as I know more about the
>game, I'll be able to see where it goes wrong (if indeed it does!). I
>usually find my weaker cites take too long to produce troops, so normally
>have to keep them building city improvements whilst the bigger cities churn
>out the armies to keep the war effort going

There is certainly no one way to win at the game. I find myself
constantly adjusting based on how the game is playing out. Conquests
changed a lot of how I play the game.