Difficulty Levels

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c60a0p$uhn$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 win with a smaller army, but you need some tactics. Let them
> send their massive force a few spaces into your land, then capture one
> their cities. This will more often then not cause them to turn around
> and slowly march back to help the homeland. Using a mobil force
> (knights, calvary, etc), you can often take whatever your war
> objectives are then move in defensive units by road easily. In later
> wars, once you have artilery, you can pound the enemy stacks in your
> territory then destroy them, but early on it's possible to win wars
> while not engaging the main army at all.
>

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

> As for allies, only do it if you really need them and don't mind a 20
> year war. Once you have nationalism, signing a MPP then going to war
> when there's just 3 turns left in it works well

I find it's handy to keep the troops of the enemy busy. it can go back and
forth for a while if they have the full army against me, losing a city
here, then gaining it, then losing it again. So it can be quite handy to
have allies attacking them from other angles or keeping them busy. Why do
you think it isn't a good idea? i find it's hard to have short wars in civ
if you want to get anything out of them! So far anyway.

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c60a0p$uhn$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>>
>> Horrible thing is though, is the size of the other nations armies!
>> I've no idea how they get them to be that big, ...
>
> While you have been building Temples and Libraries they have been
> cranking out
> military units. The huge size of the AI armies (and the associated
> maintenance
> costs) is one of the reasons you can out research them later in the
> game.

yes, that would make sense. Is it because all their money goes towards
maintaining their armies too? mind you, if they manage to win a lot of
area, they don't seem to be doing that bad!

>
>> ... 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 negotiate a
>> deal between countries to get some allies on my side, but even then
>> it would be hard.
>
> You can beat the AI even if your territory is smaller and you have
> fewer
> units.
>
> The AI does not usually build Barracks. If you do you will have a
> 33% edge
> over the AI (4 hp -vs- 3 hp) before the fighting starts.
>
> You need to understand what will happen when the AI attacks you. The
> AI will
> send all of its offensive units (well _almost_ all) at your weakest
> city.
> Before railroads they will show up as stream of units that will
> eventually run
> out. After railroads they will show up as a huge stack (called the
> Stack of
> Doom).
>
> If you can get allies, the AI's Stack of Doom may go somewhere else.
> 🙂
>
> You want to use your roads and fast movers to hit and retreat to wear
> down the
> AI's attacking units. Injured AI units will retreat to heal up. You
> don't
> want your fast movers close enough to be attacked in turn. Use your
> defensive
> units to cover your attackers.
>
> The AI knows where all your units are and it will advance toward your
> weakest
> city. Pull all the defenders out of a city and the AI will move
> toward it.
> Put the defenders back in and pull them out of another city and the
> AI will
> change course. I think of it as AI ping pong.
>
> After you get Replaceable Parts you can build Artillery. Build huge
> stacks.
> Use your railroads to get your Artillery to range 2 and pound the
> Stack of
> Doom. Protect your Artillery.
>
> After you get Flight build hordes of Bombers.
>
> Once you go on the offensive you need to know roughly how many
> defenders are
> in each AI city. It is usually the same in all of the AI's core
> cities except
> for the capital. You want to attack with enough units to win in one
> round.
> Want you don't want is to have the defenders win two battles (and get
> promoted) and survive. Bombard units help. As silly as they are,
> Catapults
> can take point or two off the AI's best defender. (And they grow up
> to be
> Artillery.)
>
> Mike G


ahh, I see! So there is a method to the computer is there? it's a shame
that it's that way. I'm not sure if I'll act upon it, as it does seem a
little unfair. But having said that, they do know where all my troops are
and how many troops are in each city! I 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.

But what is it with catapults though? I get the impression from what you
say, and from what someone else has mentioned somewhere, that they have a
pretty bad reputation!

 

[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:c60atv$6g6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> GWB wrote:
>>> I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness
>>> turned up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging game.
>>> The AI does need a production advantage to make up for the
>>> sometimes stupid moves it makes.
>>
>> So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at. Obviously
>> I'll see how I find it without the AI turned up first! But what
>> essential differences do you find between having monarch and AI
>> turned up, and the next difficulty level (emperor is it?)? Is the
>> next difficulty level just too much of a leap of unfairness?
>
> For me at least Emperor is too much of a leap. Although I did win
> the WWII conquest as the Americans on "Demigod", but that's not the
> same as a regular game. What you could do when you move to Monarch
> is turn down the AI aggressiveness one notch or all the way
> down...that might help you make the transition.

That's true. Mind you, I try to always keep the defaults the same, so I'll
probably just head straight in and try it with the aggressivness on
moderate. Although I have a feeling I won't do very well! But it's all
part of learning. but again, if it keeps happening, I'll do as you say
though.

>
>> The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on any
>> difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army units so
>> quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically churn out
>> tons of units before they do any city improvements?! but then how
>> on earth do they manage to build settlers and workers at the same
>> time?!
>
> I *think* the higher levels the AI starts with more than just a
> settler and a worker. (Don't quote me on that- could be wrong).
> Also, the AI can build settlers and workers w/o regard to city size.
> IOW, an AI city sized 1 can still churn out a settler, unlike human
> players. This I know for a fact to be true.
>
> GWB

that would certainly explain how they get cities so quickly! But it
wouldn't surprise me if you are right with the starting units for the
computer too, as they really do seem to get quite a lot of units so very
quickly as well as getting cities all over the place!

 

[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:c61206$iol$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> GWB wrote:
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c60atv$6g6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> GWB wrote:
> >>> I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness
> >>> turned up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging game.
> >>> The AI does need a production advantage to make up for the
> >>> sometimes stupid moves it makes.
> >>
> >> So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at. Obviously
> >> I'll see how I find it without the AI turned up first! But what
> >> essential differences do you find between having monarch and AI
> >> turned up, and the next difficulty level (emperor is it?)? Is the
> >> next difficulty level just too much of a leap of unfairness?
> >
> > For me at least Emperor is too much of a leap. Although I did win
> > the WWII conquest as the Americans on "Demigod", but that's not the
> > same as a regular game. What you could do when you move to Monarch
> > is turn down the AI aggressiveness one notch or all the way
> > down...that might help you make the transition.
>
> That's true. Mind you, I try to always keep the defaults the same, so
I'll
> probably just head straight in and try it with the aggressivness on
> moderate. Although I have a feeling I won't do very well! But it's all
> part of learning. but again, if it keeps happening, I'll do as you say
> though.
>
> >
> >> The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on any
> >> difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army units so
> >> quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically churn out
> >> tons of units before they do any city improvements?! but then how
> >> on earth do they manage to build settlers and workers at the same
> >> time?!
> >
> > I *think* the higher levels the AI starts with more than just a
> > settler and a worker. (Don't quote me on that- could be wrong).
> > Also, the AI can build settlers and workers w/o regard to city size.
> > IOW, an AI city sized 1 can still churn out a settler, unlike human
> > players. This I know for a fact to be true.
> >
> > GWB
>
> that would certainly explain how they get cities so quickly! But it
> wouldn't surprise me if you are right with the starting units for the
> computer too, as they really do seem to get quite a lot of units so very
> quickly as well as getting cities all over the place!

Each difficulty level has so many free units for the AI plus free extra unit
support. It can be found using the editor.

 

[contro]

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

Ambarish wrote:
> In article <qQRgc.166181$w54.1118509@attbi_s01>, GWB wrote:
>>
>> "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote in message news:c60atv$6g6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> GWB wrote:
>>>> I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness
>>>> turned up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging
>>>> game. The AI does need a production advantage to make up for the
>>>> sometimes stupid moves it makes.
>>>
>>> So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at.
>>> Obviously I'll see how I find it without the AI turned up first!
>>> But what essential differences do you find between having monarch
>>> and AI turned up, and the next difficulty level (emperor is it?)?
>>> Is the next difficulty level just too much of a leap of unfairness?
>>
>> For me at least Emperor is too much of a leap. Although I did win
>> the WWII conquest as the Americans on "Demigod", but that's not the
>> same as a regular game. What you could do when you move to Monarch
>> is turn down the AI aggressiveness one notch or all the way
>> down...that might help you make the transition.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Just my 2 paise,

yes, that is a good point. I guess if I manage to get to the point where I
do win monarch with no real challenge, then it would be a good idea to start
the next difficulty level

The problem was though, is that i do not really want to have to do specific,
or underhand tactics in order to win, or stand a chance of winning, the
game. I think that is the main concern about it all.

 

[contro]

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

alex wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c60ah8$m4l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> P12 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> But the computer needs the unfair advantage to keep up. During PTW
>>> I had gone on to Emperor once and was put off by the AI
>>> aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after dropping down my
>>> first city. One of these days I am tempted to try again with the
>>> new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.
>>
>> Thing is with you mentioning Germany declaring war on you: I think
>> that might just have been unlucky (although obviously, I'm guessing
>> with the harder difficulties, there is more chance of being
>> "unlucky" and the bad luck is a lot more severe, as was the case
>> with you). As I remember on a Warlord game once, I was against the
>> Germans, and they pretty much did the same thing, except they didn't
>> do it after just one city, I think it was two. I think they made a
>> demand of me, and I said no, and then they declared war. I thought
>> it would have been a bluff! I think it might be to do with Iron
>> really...if the Germans get their hands on Iron, then they will go
>> to war with you no matter what. I've no idea how long it takes
>> Germany to get Iron working, but they are militaristic, and the
>> computer, so probably not as long as it would take you or I! I'm
>> sure I hadn't played for that many turns in my Warlord game, and
>> they had swordsman. I basically had no chance, so had to start
>> again, as they kept demanding things of me and beating me up!
>>
>> I think it might just be a German thing.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
>>> the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
>>> Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is
>>> probably time to move up a level.
>>
>> well in Warlord I didn't really dominate that well. It was only
>> later on that I came on top. But well, I think I'm ready for
>> Regent. I'm not doing too bad on it. I'm surviving at least! But
>> as I was saying in another post, the other civs armies are just too
>> big. I couldn't win a war against them at all. Not yet anyway.
>> We'll have to see what the modern era brings!
>>
>
> It's true that AI often has lots of military units, but
> it's also true that AI doen not know how to use them.
> Most importantly AI does not know how to concentrate.
> When enemy troops invade your territory they become clumpsy
> and vulnerable. Two dozens of artillery units is all you need
> to contain enemy invasion and turn the tables on them in three-four
> turns.
>
> But even more important is that it's not necessary to wipe out all
> enemy troops by yourself. As you've mentioned elsewhere sign MPP
> and let your allies to do the job. Even better thing
> is to let them fight well-balanced world war and stay aside.
>
> In original Civ3 WWI in the middle of Industrial era
> was 99% guaranteed by the fact that there were simply no
> city improvements to build at that time. As a result AI had
> no choice other than to beef up its military and go to war.
> All you had to do was to remain in good relations with all your
> neighbors and wait till they declare war on somebody else.
> This war was always bloody and useless as cavalry was no
> match for infantry fortified in a city. In C3C they
> introduced stock exchange and commercial dock, so inflaming
> WWI may take some effort. It's conveniently done through
> joining the system of MPPs and declaring a war some
> 10 turns before your obligations expire. Human player is
> far far better than AI in such strategic planning.
>
> There are also non-military means to keep AI war burning.
> Help losing side of the war by trade.
> Give them ROP so they can retain mobility in your territory.
> Give scientifically backward nations key defense
> technologies like replaceable parts and computers for free.
>

These are good ideas, I have to admit! It's interesting the way it worked
though, in regards to world war 1 being inevitable, as that is so true to
life really. From the games I have played with conquests though, wars do
still seem to happen, especially with my recent game, as all hell broke
loose once the industrial times were about halfway through, with almost
everyone at war.

But yes, I'll definitely be careful how I manage wars, of relations with
other civs who are at war. I think I was mentioning in another post how in
my current game, the bully happens to be backwards with tech, but somehow is
winning the wars. if I can sponsor them, then it could work out that I can
become the tech leader if I manipulate them to smash the smaller, but more
technically advanced, nations. I think the biggest nation does have the
most points, but if I can nick in with a space race victory or such like,
I'll be sorted!

> Aggressive neighbor is unpleasant thing and should be
> handled along the same lines: appease your neighbor and
> redirect their aggression. In one of my games
> (Americans/Emperor/Standard size archipelago) I found myself
> sharing a continent with the Vikings. 10 of my 11 cities were
> built on seashore and were vulnerable to amphibious berserks.
> In addition I had two horses and two gems and nothing else
> (later I found one uranium).
> Around 1000BC Persians arrived across the strait and demanded
> Literature from me. I declined, it was my only chance. Namely,
> in response to declaration of war I signed alliance with Vikings
> against Persians, killed single Persian warrior and had no further
> combat practice until 1840AD. On the other hand the Vikings have not
> seen a single day of peace until their end in 1850AD.
> Between 1000BC and 1840AD the only priority of my foreign policy
> was to appease the Vikings. Now, what happened between 1840 and 1850?

you went to war with the vikings with your built up army?!

 

[Guest]

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

> You may want to try the level a step below Monarch, I think it is Regent.
> It puts you and the computer at the same level in all areas.

Which is why it's not much good. Unfortunately the AI simply isn't good
enough to face a human player on a level playing field.

 

[contro]

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

MikeyD wrote:
>> You may want to try the level a step below Monarch, I think it is
>> Regent. It puts you and the computer at the same level in all areas.
>
> Which is why it's not much good. Unfortunately the AI simply isn't
> good enough to face a human player on a level playing field.

LOL well it's good enough for me at the moment!

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

>But what is it with catapults though? I get the impression from what you
>say, and from what someone else has mentioned somewhere, that they have a
>pretty bad reputation!

I never use this type of artillery. Not since the AI stole some
poorly defended ones from me wat back on chieftan level.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:50:38 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on any
>difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army units so
>quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically churn out tons of
>units before they do any city improvements?! but then how on earth do they
>manage to build settlers and workers at the same time?!

The higher level you go up the more free units the AI starts with.
This may even include settlers. I think the AI may also get few units
free of support cost. This makes them think they are super strong
early on in the game.

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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:43:51 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>I think theStare said Regent did have some bias towards the computer, but
>nothing as noticable...it seems that a lot of people recommend the monarch
>difficulty as being the best one to play under. Obviously I want to finish
>Regent first, but I'm glad I'm not that far away from the "correct"
>difficulty to play under. I would like to try the harder ones though! But
>well, it won't be for a while yet.

Why are you worried about playing on the "correct" level. You sound
like a boy who hasn't lost his innocence yet. I think a lot of us
wouldn't mind going back to when the AI didn't have to cheat to win.
I find a certain thrill to being outwitted instead of losing with my
hands tied behind my back.

>Thing is with you mentioning Germany declaring war on you: I think that
>might just have been unlucky (although obviously, I'm guessing with the
>harder difficulties, there is more chance of being "unlucky" and the bad
>luck is a lot more severe, as was the case with you). As I remember on a
>Warlord game once, I was against the Germans, and they pretty much did the
>same thing, except they didn't do it after just one city, I think it was
>two. I think they made a demand of me, and I said no, and then they
>declared war. I thought it would have been a bluff! I think it might be to
>do with Iron really...if the Germans get their hands on Iron, then they will
>go to war with you no matter what. I've no idea how long it takes Germany
>to get Iron working, but they are militaristic, and the computer, so
>probably not as long as it would take you or I! I'm sure I hadn't played
>for that many turns in my Warlord game, and they had swordsman. I basically
>had no chance, so had to start again, as they kept demanding things of me
>and beating me up!

Perhaps it was unlucky. Germany had fortified a unit in some
floodplain nearby my capital. Needed the food to get some settlers
going. They declared war because I build my city there. Their civ
was so far away I didn't get why they would need that.

>I think it might just be a German thing.

I have never seen Germany make into the industrial age with more than
a handful of cities left. I think the game makers punished them for
that whole Nazi thing. : )

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c61169$q8i$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>
>>> You can win with a smaller army, but you need some tactics. Let them
>>> send their massive force a few spaces into your land, then capture
>>> one their cities. This will more often then not cause them to turn
>>> around and slowly march back to help the homeland. Using a mobil
>>> force (knights, calvary, etc), you can often take whatever your war
>>> objectives are then move in defensive units by road easily. In later
>>> wars, once you have artilery, you can pound the enemy stacks in your
>>> territory then destroy them, but early on it's possible to win wars
>>> while not engaging the main army at all.
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> What you're doing, in a way, is exploiting bad AI. Instead of picking
> one objective and going for it, the computer tends to change its mind
> depending on current situations. Thus, an attack on the homeland
> causes it to recall all it's troops. At most, a couple units will
> attack your city but you should be able to hold them off (you DID
> re-enforce it, right?). Alternativly you can empty one of your inner
> cities of defenders and they'll ignore everything else to go after it.
>

Yes, you are right about it explointing the bad AI. That is partly why I'm
a bit reluctant to use such tactics really. While I know the computer
cheats, it doesn't feel right to cheat back really!

As for re-enforcing, well I could do a bit more, it has to be said! LOL

> With regard to taking and holding enemy cities, the key is that if you
> keep taking new territory behind the army that's in your land, you can
> use roads to advance and take more while the AI is limited to one
> square at a time. Take a couple cities and they'll want to talk peace.
> You may have to sacrifice a unit or two if your war has gone too well,
> as sometimes it seems they won't come to the table until they've won
> at least one battle. It's an ego thing

Yes, thats a good idea. I'll try to do that as well really. Although I
guess it will be down to circumstance and the time you take it. I do most
of my wars towards the end of the game, so a lot of roads and the like are
already about. Plus the computer seems to have lots of calvalry. But I'll
definitely bare it in mind!

As for the computer needing to win one or two battles, well they usually
don't have much problem doing that with me! LOL I really like it though
when you can basically take most of their posessions, including a good
number of cities, in the peace talks. Serves them right for messing with
you!

>
>>> As for allies, only do it if you really need them and don't mind a
>>> 20 year war. Once you have nationalism, signing a MPP then going to
>>> war when there's just 3 turns left in it works well
>>
>> I find it's handy to keep the troops of the enemy busy. it can go
>> back and forth for a while if they have the full army against me,
>> losing a city here, then gaining it, then losing it again. So it
>> can be quite handy to have allies attacking them from other angles
>> or keeping them busy. Why do you think it isn't a good idea?
>
> In same cases it is, but usually only if the enemy is between the two
> of you. Thus you're truely having your allies draw forces to the other
> side. If you have to travel through your ally to get to the enemy,
> it'll take too long to bring in more troops and defend/expand your
> captured territory.

oh yes, very true. I normally only go for expanding territory, as you say,
so do not go for wars that will result in isolated cities if I take any. if
I can help it anyway!

>
>> i find it's hard to have short wars in civ
>> if you want to get anything out of them! So far anyway.
>>
> 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.

Thanks for all that!

 

[contro]

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

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)).

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c611oh$s8m$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> But what is it with catapults though? I get the impression from
>> what you say, and from what someone else has mentioned somewhere,
>> that they have a pretty bad reputation!
>>
> iirc they only have a range of one, meaning they have to get right
> next to the enemy to do any good. Artilery, though, has a range of two
> meaning you can have a better attack plan (first turn move artilery
> onto a hill in enemy territory two squares away from city, and your
> tanks two squares so they're next to the city. Second turn, bomb away
> then attack with tanks. Repeat.)

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 take it you could have them on the
same square as the tank or what not, and it wouldn't really make much
difference?

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. 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

 

[contro]

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

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!

>
>> But what is it with catapults though? I get the impression from
>> what you say, and from what someone else has mentioned somewhere,
>> that they have a pretty bad reputation!
>
> I never use this type of artillery. Not since the AI stole some
> poorly defended ones from me wat back on chieftan level.

LOL I tried using them once or twice (well it was trebuchets I think) but
they just never seem to do any damage. So that might have been what put me
off artillery.

 

[contro]

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

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!

 

[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:c61206$iol$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> GWB wrote:
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote in message news:c60atv$6g6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> GWB wrote:
>>>>> I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness
>>>>> turned up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging
>>>>> game. The AI does need a production advantage to make up for the
>>>>> sometimes stupid moves it makes.
>>>>
>>>> So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at.
>>>> Obviously I'll see how I find it without the AI turned up first!
>>>> But what essential differences do you find between having monarch
>>>> and AI turned up, and the next difficulty level (emperor is it?)?
>>>> Is the next difficulty level just too much of a leap of unfairness?
>>>
>>> For me at least Emperor is too much of a leap. Although I did win
>>> the WWII conquest as the Americans on "Demigod", but that's not the
>>> same as a regular game. What you could do when you move to Monarch
>>> is turn down the AI aggressiveness one notch or all the way
>>> down...that might help you make the transition.
>>
>> That's true. Mind you, I try to always keep the defaults the same,
>> so I'll probably just head straight in and try it with the
>> aggressivness on moderate. Although I have a feeling I won't do
>> very well! But it's all part of learning. but again, if it keeps
>> happening, I'll do as you say though.
>>
>>>
>>>> The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on
>>>> any difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army
>>>> units so quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically
>>>> churn out tons of units before they do any city improvements?!
>>>> but then how on earth do they manage to build settlers and workers
>>>> at the same time?!
>>>
>>> I *think* the higher levels the AI starts with more than just a
>>> settler and a worker. (Don't quote me on that- could be wrong).
>>> Also, the AI can build settlers and workers w/o regard to city size.
>>> IOW, an AI city sized 1 can still churn out a settler, unlike human
>>> players. This I know for a fact to be true.
>>>
>>> GWB
>>
>> that would certainly explain how they get cities so quickly! But it
>> wouldn't surprise me if you are right with the starting units for the
>> computer too, as they really do seem to get quite a lot of units so
>> very quickly as well as getting cities all over the place!
>
> Each difficulty level has so many free units for the AI plus free
> extra unit support. It can be found using the editor.

ahhh, so that is why then! Thanks!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:50:38 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on any
>> difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army units so
>> quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically churn out
>> tons of units before they do any city improvements?! but then how
>> on earth do they manage to build settlers and workers at the same
>> time?!
>
> The higher level you go up the more free units the AI starts with.
> This may even include settlers. I think the AI may also get few units
> free of support cost. This makes them think they are super strong
> early on in the game.

Yes, having free settlers would certainly help a lot too! nevermind just
having free attacking units! No wonder they can produce more offensive
units if they don't need to worry about producing settlers! And then when
they do produce settlers, they don't need to worry about city size! if only
I had it so easy LOL

>
> 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?

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:43:51 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> I think theStare said Regent did have some bias towards the
>> computer, but nothing as noticable...it seems that a lot of people
>> recommend the monarch difficulty as being the best one to play
>> under. Obviously I want to finish Regent first, but I'm glad I'm
>> not that far away from the "correct" difficulty to play under. I
>> would like to try the harder ones though! But well, it won't be for
>> a while yet.
>
> Why are you worried about playing on the "correct" level. You sound
> like a boy who hasn't lost his innocence yet.

LOL that's quite a good comparison!

I think a lot of us
> wouldn't mind going back to when the AI didn't have to cheat to win.
> I find a certain thrill to being outwitted instead of losing with my
> hands tied behind my back.

well, I know what you mean. I guess if I become good enough at a difficulty
level, then it won't be too bad. But well, again, my main problem was that
I want to enjoy the game, and wouldn't really want to have to perform some
sort of method in order to win...I have to do this, or have to do that, you
know?

>
>> Thing is with you mentioning Germany declaring war on you: I think
>> that might just have been unlucky (although obviously, I'm guessing
>> with the harder difficulties, there is more chance of being
>> "unlucky" and the bad luck is a lot more severe, as was the case
>> with you). As I remember on a Warlord game once, I was against the
>> Germans, and they pretty much did the same thing, except they didn't
>> do it after just one city, I think it was two. I think they made a
>> demand of me, and I said no, and then they declared war. I thought
>> it would have been a bluff! I think it might be to do with Iron
>> really...if the Germans get their hands on Iron, then they will go
>> to war with you no matter what. I've no idea how long it takes
>> Germany to get Iron working, but they are militaristic, and the
>> computer, so probably not as long as it would take you or I! I'm
>> sure I hadn't played for that many turns in my Warlord game, and
>> they had swordsman. I basically had no chance, so had to start
>> again, as they kept demanding things of me and beating me up!
>
> Perhaps it was unlucky. Germany had fortified a unit in some
> floodplain nearby my capital. Needed the food to get some settlers
> going. They declared war because I build my city there. Their civ
> was so far away I didn't get why they would need that.
>

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!

>> I think it might just be a German thing.
>
> I have never seen Germany make into the industrial age with more than
> a handful of cities left. I think the game makers punished them for
> that whole Nazi thing. : )

LOL that is a good point. I haven't played with them for a while now, but
they always seem to get a bit battered. Apart from that time where they
forced me to start the game again as they were beating me up all the time
LOL but if I had survived, I would have made sure they wouldn't have made
it past the industrial age! 🙂

 

[Guest]

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

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.

>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.

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

>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. 🙂


Mike G

 

[Guest]

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

"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.

GWB

> Just my 2 paise,
> --
> Ambarish

 

[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: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

 

[wintermute]

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:

>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.