Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

In article <c65lf5$u4a$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
> GWB wrote:
>> "Ambarish" <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote in message
>> news:c60r6g$qek$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>
>>> 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.

There's still an incredible amount of variety in strategies that you can
adopt, even at higher levels. For starters, different map sizes call for
different strategies. You could also try variants. I notice you're
comfortable at Regent, so once you get to Emperor/Deity, you could try,
for instance, an OCC at Monarch, or an Always War at Monarch. Those will
be comparable to Deity, btw, but involve very different strategies.

--
Ambarish

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:26:38 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>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.

I had some fun messing with the AI moving while playing a few of the
Conquests. When land ran out nearby they where pumping settlers
through my land faster than I could build cities. I had plenty of
room to expand on my side. So I would wait until they where near the
end of my territory and then move units in to block them. Then after
they started moving back a few squares I would move my units away. I
had them walking all over the place while I finished off building my
cities.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:25:44 GMT, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>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.

And why would they need one. They already know if you sneak attack
someone or break a treaty. No need for embassies until they can form
alliances or MPP.

 

[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: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.

I didn't know the colluseum and the temples caused so much hassle. but I
guess it depends on if you can get a lot of luxuries and what not for your
marketplace to work well. if you have a lot of those, then it does make
sense not to have those other buildings. So I'll definitely pay more
attention to which buildings should be built, and not just do so for the
sake of it!

I usualy always build a library and marketplace as soon as I can, but I
guess I should do the university a bit quicker also! I try to get a good
culture going, in case I can nick any enemy cities without having to go to
war. What is it that triggers a city to swear allegiance to your civ
though? is it if your nearest city has twice as much culture as that city
or somesuch?

 

[contro]

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

Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> "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.

this is true, but what about when hospitals are built? Won't that cause
problems?

> 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.

well hopefully they will flip! I always think they will from the position of
the cities, but it doesn't always happen. Plus talking of the area away
from the computer, on the other side of your civ territory, it just is
horrible when you think you've stopped the computer from getting to the
areas you have not populated, only for them to turn up in a ship to do it!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> 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.

yes, some upgrades cost a lot of money, and it really is easier to just
build a new unit instead. But yes, I'm usually forced to reduce tech
spending in order to place more on making people happy. Is it worth
converting to fascism before embarking on any wars (obviously ones that you
know will be long), or is it not really worth it due to the negative points
of it?

I saw a while back in some screenshot that you could sacrifice units,
presumably earlier on in the game. But how do you go about doing this? I
had a quick look at one point, but there didn't seem to be an option. You
seemed get culture points for it, so I thought it would be worth knowing.

>
>> 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.

Those are good points. It's so good the way there are just so many ways to
do things! I'll definitely look into saving up money as a tactic, and see
how I find it. it seems both ways have their advantages, and perhaps a
combination of the two might be possible!

>
>> 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.

Yes, it certainly is good fun, and keeps you on your toes! I never used to
bother with iron working until I'd researched a few other techs, but now I
try to go for it as soon as I can, so I can keep my military up to date, and
get those positions with iron in them, rather than let the opponent get
them. sometimes I can be very lucky and get all the other basic techs from
the tribes! I remember one game I was really lucky and got pottery,
ceremonial burial and the wheel (I think it was the wheel, might have been
another one) in one game from tribes! Certainly helped put me in a good
position with technology!

 

[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: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.

Oh yes, I remember those! LOL when I first started I noticed they were
different and looked at them, but I had since forgotten about them! thanks
for reminding me about them.. But yes, I'll be sure to move them slowly in
case of movement differences

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:47:21 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>yes, some upgrades cost a lot of money, and it really is easier to just
>build a new unit instead. But yes, I'm usually forced to reduce tech
>spending in order to place more on making people happy. Is it worth
>converting to fascism before embarking on any wars (obviously ones that you
>know will be long), or is it not really worth it due to the negative points
>of it?

I never use fascism of fundamentalism. Too much economic negative.
It's easier to use one of the freedom governments and risk the war
weariness. If the war goes long you can usually make a deal to end it
that's cheaper than the fascism hit would have been.

>I saw a while back in some screenshot that you could sacrifice units,
>presumably earlier on in the game. But how do you go about doing this?

Some governments force you to sacrifice people to rush build, some let
you use money. This is an option you can set in the editor if you like
one or the other.

I
>had a quick look at one point, but there didn't seem to be an option. You
>seemed get culture points for it, so I thought it would be worth knowing.

I think what the other poster was referring to was disbanding (the 'd'
key) units while inside a city. You get some shields from their
destruction that credit toward whatever you're currently building. I'm
not sure this works if you disband from the military advisor screen
(F3)--I've never tested it. I do it from the main screen. Especially
useful to dump old, obsolete naval units and rush build a modern land
unit, or city improvement.

>Yes, it certainly is good fun, and keeps you on your toes! I never used to
>bother with iron working until I'd researched a few other techs, but now I
>try to go for it as soon as I can, so I can keep my military up to date, and
>get those positions with iron in them, rather than let the opponent get
>them. sometimes I can be very lucky and get all the other basic techs from
>the tribes! I remember one game I was really lucky and got pottery,
>ceremonial burial and the wheel (I think it was the wheel, might have been
>another one) in one game from tribes! Certainly helped put me in a good
>position with technology!

I think iron is hands-down the most important resource in any game,
both for offense and defense. Which is pretty historically correct.

Steve

--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[contro]

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

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> 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.

They sure do have a lot of benefits. Especially for defence, as like you
say, getting that extra hit on the enemy does help a lot! I usually
concentrated most of my bombarding using chips and planes, and never really
did much with canons and the like, but it has to be said that they would be
great at defence, and I do see that they are great at hurting enemy cities
and their terrain improvements. I'm just worried about the cost. That is
always the main reason I'm low on units and don't have too many. I think I
do need to look at how I can get more money and support bigger armies.

>
>> 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.

It certainly is, especially with the high defence ratings of units such as
infantry. But again, as you say, the artillery are good for defencive
purposes as well! I just hope I can get enough money to produce enough of
them in order for it to be productive and to not lose out on other areas of
the army.

>
>
>>>> 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.

I've never actually had any stealth bombers! LOL I've usually either
finished the game by then, as I don't research that part, going for the
other areas, such as those in order to get the space race parts. I've never
really used the modern tanks either, as like you say, I always get them
after I've had my wars. typical!

 

[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: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.

Yes, it is definitely handy to know who is at war with whom. I think the
only reason I didn't do it this time around was purely because of money. I
was playing on a large map too, so the distance was very great, and it cost
a lot to get the embassies. It was annoying, as later on, I could really
have known who was at war and who wasn't, so I could attack the right people
and not have to worry about the consequences so much!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:25:44 GMT, "The Stare"
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And why would they need one. They already know if you sneak attack
> someone or break a treaty. No need for embassies until they can form
> alliances or MPP.

LOL good point

 

[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: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).

Yes, this was what I was worried about really, as if you are a democracy,
the declaring of war would not go down well with your people, even if it was
because of an MPP. When I asked for people to sign up to this pact, I was
already at war with someone, so it wasn't like I only attacked afterwards,
and they did end up gracious with the deal afterwards! But I was just
thinking that really, the "correct" thing to do would have been to ask for
an alliance against who I was at war with. But I'm thinking they might be
more reluctant to sign that deal than the MPP, despite the fact that, like I
say, I was already at war with that civ.

 

[contro]

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

Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> "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.

LOL yes, true. Or if you are a small country, not a democracy, and sign
the MPP with a big country! Although I guess that could even backfire, if a
bigger country than yourself goes to war with the biggest one, and has
enough troops to spare to fight your country. I guess it just depends on
how much you think you can handle and defend yourself

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> 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.

I was already at war when I arranged it, and they all seemed pretty happy to
join with me! I'm not sure why, as it wasn't a particularly small country I
went to war with. I had to trade a tech with a couple of people to get them
into the war, but most just did it for nothing! I was surprised. I think
most civs liked me in the game though, as I had not been in any wars, and
had refused alliances and such like on many occasions. when I was brought
into war, by a country not leaving my territory, it seemed that the civs
were happy to finally have me on their side, which was quite nice! I don't
know if that was the case, but they were more than happy to join the
alliance with me. As I say, on many occasions I had civs asking for a MPP
with me, to help preserve world peace and what not (although that civ went
to war with someone the next turn after I refused LOL), and specific
alliances, so it did seem that because they had no quibbles with me, they
were happy to be on my side when asked. that's how it seemed anyway! I
wasn't a country that had to buy peace either (by way of being blackmailed)
so perhaps that helped as well, as perhaps I was seen as a peaceful country,
and that the other civs wanted to help a peaceful nation when war was
declared on them. Might be reading too much into it, but that is how it
seemed!

 

[contro]

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

Ambarish wrote:
> In article <c65lf5$u4a$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
>> GWB wrote:
>>> "Ambarish" <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote in message
>>> news:c60r6g$qek$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> There's still an incredible amount of variety in strategies that you
> can adopt, even at higher levels. For starters, different map sizes
> call for different strategies. You could also try variants. I notice
> you're comfortable at Regent, so once you get to Emperor/Deity, you
> could try, for instance, an OCC at Monarch, or an Always War at
> Monarch. Those will be comparable to Deity, btw, but involve very
> different strategies.

LOL well I'm comfortable with the way I sit when playing Regent! I'm okay
at it so far, I'm not doing terrible, but I could be doing better. But I
know what you mean, there are a lot of variables when playing civ, such as
the world size, type of world and just the aggressiveness of the other civs.
I guess I'll just have to see how it goes really! If there are different
strategies available at the later levels, then that is great! But even
then, it might seem a bit restrictive if you still have to do certain
things. But I'll see! I'm a long way off getting to that level yet!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> 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.

crikey! So once you nuke someone, most other civs, if they can, will nuke
you back, all declaring war on you?! Unless they don't like the civ you
nuked of course. Well, I'd best make sure I'm a world power when I do any
nuking!

>
> 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.

Just like real life I guess! I hear that the nuclear pollution takes ages
and ages to remove as well, is that true? I guess nukes should be used when
you just want to devastate a civ really, if it makes taking the cities a
waste of time. Would it not be worth taking them and just letting them
"start again" or what not, back as a small city?

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:26:38 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I had some fun messing with the AI moving while playing a few of the
> Conquests. When land ran out nearby they where pumping settlers
> through my land faster than I could build cities. I had plenty of
> room to expand on my side. So I would wait until they where near the
> end of my territory and then move units in to block them. Then after
> they started moving back a few squares I would move my units away. I
> had them walking all over the place while I finished off building my
> cities.

LOL well I think they deserve that, as it is so annoying when they try to
nick all the spaces with their "free" settlers! I guess it just depends on
if you are lucky enough to have area that you can do that with and know
where the computer is going to try to place a city, so it's not something
you can sucessfully do every time. But handy if you can!

 

[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:c687d8$jk5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>> "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.ki
>> ngd 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.
>
> this is true, but what about when hospitals are built? Won't that
> cause problems?

Once you have hospitals, or just too many cities, you can get the
filler cities to build settlers/workers until those cities are
abandoned. Then you add those settlers/workers to your good cities.

--
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?)

Jeffery S. Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> writes:
> 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.

I've found that by the time I have tanks and radar artillery, bombers
are a far better use of my money than any sort of artillery piece.

--
Chas Blackwell <Black Isis> CITES Workstation Services Group
<cblkwell@uiuc.edu>
I don't even know what CITES stands
for, so I don't speak for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day. | VNV Nation,
I will remember you and wonder who we were." | "Further"

 

[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:c68771$jfe$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Stare wrote:

<snippage>

> >
> > 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.
>
> I didn't know the colluseum and the temples caused so much hassle. but I
> guess it depends on if you can get a lot of luxuries and what not for your
> marketplace to work well. if you have a lot of those, then it does make
> sense not to have those other buildings. So I'll definitely pay more
> attention to which buildings should be built, and not just do so for the
> sake of it!
>
> I usualy always build a library and marketplace as soon as I can, but I
> guess I should do the university a bit quicker also! I try to get a good
> culture going, in case I can nick any enemy cities without having to go to
> war. What is it that triggers a city to swear allegiance to your civ
> though? is it if your nearest city has twice as much culture as that city
> or somesuch?

Building libraries/universities is even easier if you are a scientific civ,
plus you have a 5% instead of 3% chance of getting SGLs.

There is a very complicated formula for culture flips. The biggest part is
how many of the 21 tile radius belong to another civ (local culture). The
overall culture ratio, how many units in the lesser city, and a few other
things i think all play a part.

 

[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:c687d8$jk5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
> > om> wrote in news:c65k4n$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.
>
> this is true, but what about when hospitals are built? Won't that cause
> problems?

If you want to get use to closely spaced citys, play the Conquests
themselves. There are several of them that have pre-placed cities extremely
close together.

After you play a few games with tight city spacing, you will find that some
overlap is no problem but actually helps because you can never get that 20th
citizen happy without entertainment otherwise.

 

[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:c687rq$1do$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I saw a while back in some screenshot that you could sacrifice units,
> presumably earlier on in the game. But how do you go about doing this? I
> had a quick look at one point, but there didn't seem to be an option. You
> seemed get culture points for it, so I thought it would be worth knowing.

Sacrificing slaves for culture is only in a couple of the Conquests.
Specifically the ones that have the mesoamerican civs in them. It isn't part
of the epic game.

 

[Guest]

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

"P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
news:tfne80podv25pn43l7bbq3b1uj2f9cjuel@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:25:44 GMT, "The Stare"
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> And why would they need one. They already know if you sneak attack
> someone or break a treaty. No need for embassies until they can form
> alliances or MPP.

Just a note of little interest... in the Age of Discovery, the Dutch have
established an embassy with me several times when playing as a new world
civ.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:59:25 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Yes, it is definitely handy to know who is at war with whom. I think the
>only reason I didn't do it this time around was purely because of money. I
>was playing on a large map too, so the distance was very great, and it cost
>a lot to get the embassies. It was annoying, as later on, I could really
>have known who was at war and who wasn't, so I could attack the right people
>and not have to worry about the consequences so much!

I often cannot afford them until late in the game. They really should
lower the cost the greater number of civs in the game. The AI almost
never establishes one so it is an extra added cost to the human
player. And when their are 17 civs you really need to pick and choose
which civs you should put one in. Often times I cannot even save
enough money because a different civ will just extort it from me.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:09:28 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>I was already at war when I arranged it, and they all seemed pretty happy to
>join with me! I'm not sure why, as it wasn't a particularly small country I
>went to war with. I had to trade a tech with a couple of people to get them
>into the war, but most just did it for nothing! I was surprised. I think
>most civs liked me in the game though, as I had not been in any wars, and
>had refused alliances and such like on many occasions. when I was brought
>into war, by a country not leaving my territory, it seemed that the civs
>were happy to finally have me on their side, which was quite nice! I don't
>know if that was the case, but they were more than happy to join the
>alliance with me.

The civ you went to war with may have been extorting money from them
or had attacked them before. One good thing about an alliance is that
it lowers relations between your ally and enemy. I find civs who
have already been at war with another civ are quick to ally again't
them.

>As I say, on many occasions I had civs asking for a MPP
>with me, to help preserve world peace and what not (although that civ went
>to war with someone the next turn after I refused LOL), and specific
>alliances, so it did seem that because they had no quibbles with me, they
>were happy to be on my side when asked. that's how it seemed anyway! I
>wasn't a country that had to buy peace either (by way of being blackmailed)
>so perhaps that helped as well, as perhaps I was seen as a peaceful country,
>and that the other civs wanted to help a peaceful nation when war was
>declared on them. Might be reading too much into it, but that is how it
>seemed!

I think MPP are really just added in there to get wars going. They
result in a World War more often then they "Keep the Peace". You must
be very careful who you make one with. They easily turn you into a
deal breaker and put you at war with a friend or powerful enemy. War
could also kick at a very vulnerable time.