Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:15:17 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>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!

Yup that is how it works. Fortunately most won't have a lot of nukes
since it requires a modern tech and the very rare uranium.

>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?

I don't think the pollution itself takes any more time then standard
pollution to clean up. The problem is every tile is polluted
immediately around the city. And unlike standard pollution the roads,
mines, irrigation, and railroads are all destroyed. All that takes a
long time to build back up.

At that age I don't really need the cities unless they contain an
important GW. I only bother cleaning up pollution in my own cities.
Unfortunately if the AI decides to nuke that city again while you are
cleaning pollution you will loose all your workers. If you have tons
of spare workers you could probably bring back a few of those cities.
Or if you just don't care and leave them alone going for a domination
victory.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <Xns94D35F261B2B3kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4>, Kevin
'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> "Contro"
><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>wrote in news:c687d8$jk5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote in news:c65k4n$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.

Or even simpler, don't build hospitals. You only need uber-cities for
wonders or those 640-shield SS parts; so one or two such cities is
enough.

Another possibility is that you capture cities from the AI and make them
productive. Since the AI cities are always widely spaced, use them for
wonders/SS parts and your original core for other things, like troops.

--
Ambarish

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c68l9u$efi$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Chastity Blackwell wrote:
> 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.

I assume you're talking about Conquests. In vanilla or PTW, bombers
don't have lethal bombing; but unlike artillery they can still be shot
down by fighters. This renders them pretty much useless beyond rocketry
(Jet Fighters). I build them only for disbanding in low-shield cities
🙂

--
Ambarish

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:36:26 -0400, P12 <nomail@all.com> wrote:

>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.

The AI will establish embassies in the early game if it has the
money, and sometimes will do so later on. My guess is that they must
have the spare gold. I've often had the AI establish embassies on me,
when I couldn't afford to get them.

OTOH, I will raise taxes for a bit to raise the money (or sell
things or whatever) in order to make the embassies when I figure I'll
need them -- military alliances against a threat are the main early
use of them, though knowing more about what the AI is up to is always
nice.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:36:16 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>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!

The Colloseum and Cathedral are definitely expensive for what they
give you. Luxuries with marketplaces are a way better deal
economically for happiness, and you should strive to *own* four
luxuries, and have sources for at least two more. Ideally, have all
eight -- the last two luxuries with marketplace yield EIGHT content
citizens, which is usually enough to make even big cities secure.

On the temple, I like doing both library and temple for culture --
the temple makes less, but it is the best deal for the money, and
cheap enough to rush-buy. If you're religious it should be first
choice, if not, it still should be put in early for the bonus culture
(most culture buildings generate extra culture after 1000 years),


>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?

The big things are culture expansion, and cultural superiority.
When your city's cultural borders overlap the other city's squares in
use, there is a sort of "culture struggle." If your city happens to
have more than half its population of the other culture (this happens
with newly captured cities often enough), it is much more likely to
change sides. Military garrisons reduce the chances -- a city with
twice the population in land garrison (land attack units, no air, sea,
artillery, etc.) will never flip (as of PTW).

The more your culture is superior to the other, the better the odds
of flipping. The other key thing is culture *points* in the city --
if the city has a large culture score itself, it is much less likely
to flip. Newly built cities, OTOH, are easily overwhelmed -- the AI
often puts down new cities near mine, and I can more or less ignore
them, expecting them to convert.

But I've been caught by the same thing, not enough culture
superiority and pushing cities right on the AI's borders. Doing that
lets you "capturre" a bit of territory without going to war, if you
can raise the city culture fast enough, but it risks the city flipping
because it is within the enemy's cultural area.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:54:55 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>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 this is what I meant. There is a icon also to disband. You can
disband anywhere but if you do so inside a city you get few shields.
This isn't very helpful in the best cities but can be great in highly
corruptive cities. I might use this tactic to get a temple or
courthouse into my weaker cities. If the cities are still relatively
close to the captital they could become one of my key cities later in
the game.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>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.

Well, I'm confused by what you just wrote there because I've had a few
cities flip, especially after a massive late game war, that were no
longer close to their original owners.

As America (which I play mostly because I'm more familiar with the
names of the cities as we Americans are such ethnocentrists by nature
🙂 I fought India, my last competitor, taking almost half their
turf before finally getting them to accept peace. I didn't believe I
was ready to fight, but they attacked first and I was compelled to
expend everything I could to take every city that housed nukes. At any
rate, in the next two turns following peace, I lost 1 city each turn.
Neither was near the new borders, and one was recently Roman.

Further, I had sizable stacks in these cities, which I clearly lost.

After spending about 10 turns pumping up my collection of armor, I
finished the job... But 10 moves prior I was worried that I was going
to lose.

Cheers,

Todd

 

[Guest]

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

"Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister" <stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote in
message news:cg4h80hrb1pbhb5qbfn4stsumc7o5b05b8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "The Stare"
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Well, I'm confused by what you just wrote there because I've had a few
> cities flip, especially after a massive late game war, that were no
> longer close to their original owners.
>
> As America (which I play mostly because I'm more familiar with the
> names of the cities as we Americans are such ethnocentrists by nature
> 🙂 I fought India, my last competitor, taking almost half their
> turf before finally getting them to accept peace. I didn't believe I
> was ready to fight, but they attacked first and I was compelled to
> expend everything I could to take every city that housed nukes. At any
> rate, in the next two turns following peace, I lost 1 city each turn.
> Neither was near the new borders, and one was recently Roman.
>
> Further, I had sizable stacks in these cities, which I clearly lost.
>
> After spending about 10 turns pumping up my collection of armor, I
> finished the job... But 10 moves prior I was worried that I was going
> to lose.

# of foreign nationals in the city also plays a role. Since these were
previously Indian, so were the citizens who maintain an alliegence to the
homeland. If there were still resistors in the cities, that increases the
odds alot.

Another factor is relative distance to the capitals. All these things and
more play a part in determining whether a city will flip or not.

As of PTW it is possible to have enough units in the city to prevent culture
flips.

 

[Guest]

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

The thing I like about culture flipping is that I can get one civ fighting a
rival on my border. When the ally captures a city that's along my border,
it will remain in their hands for about 20 turns after I declare peace with
my rival or wipe them out completely. Then that city flips over to me.
Why? My culture is greater than my former ally and what remains of my
former rival would rather live with me than live with the other civ.

However, it can backfire. I've taken cities that would later culture flip
to one of my former allies or sometimes in a multi-nation war to one of my
other rivals.


"The Stare" <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Qh2ic.2451$E42.1535@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister" <stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote in
> message news:cg4h80hrb1pbhb5qbfn4stsumc7o5b05b8@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:06:58 GMT, "The Stare"
> > <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Well, I'm confused by what you just wrote there because I've had a few
> > cities flip, especially after a massive late game war, that were no
> > longer close to their original owners.
> >
> > As America (which I play mostly because I'm more familiar with the
> > names of the cities as we Americans are such ethnocentrists by nature
> > 🙂 I fought India, my last competitor, taking almost half their
> > turf before finally getting them to accept peace. I didn't believe I
> > was ready to fight, but they attacked first and I was compelled to
> > expend everything I could to take every city that housed nukes. At any
> > rate, in the next two turns following peace, I lost 1 city each turn.
> > Neither was near the new borders, and one was recently Roman.
> >
> > Further, I had sizable stacks in these cities, which I clearly lost.
> >
> > After spending about 10 turns pumping up my collection of armor, I
> > finished the job... But 10 moves prior I was worried that I was going
> > to lose.
>
> # of foreign nationals in the city also plays a role. Since these were
> previously Indian, so were the citizens who maintain an alliegence to the
> homeland. If there were still resistors in the cities, that increases the
> odds alot.
>
> Another factor is relative distance to the capitals. All these things and
> more play a part in determining whether a city will flip or not.
>
> As of PTW it is possible to have enough units in the city to prevent
culture
> flips.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Tzar Sasha" <ZarSasha@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:108hf5od451n92b@corp.supernews.com...
> The thing I like about culture flipping is that I can get one civ fighting
a
> rival on my border. When the ally captures a city that's along my border,
> it will remain in their hands for about 20 turns after I declare peace
with
> my rival or wipe them out completely. Then that city flips over to me.
> Why? My culture is greater than my former ally and what remains of my
> former rival would rather live with me than live with the other civ.
>
> However, it can backfire. I've taken cities that would later culture flip
> to one of my former allies or sometimes in a multi-nation war to one of my
> other rivals.

I make it a habit to starve and/or build workers with the foreign population
till it is size one. If your in a forced labor goverment, sometimes you get
lucky and rush the other civs pop out instead of your own.

 

[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: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.

I'm sorry, I've tried to think what SGL stands for, but I just can't think
of what it could be! I was assuming you were meaning a culture flip, but
just in case, I thought I'd best say I wasn't sure!

>
> 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.

So is it sort of how much your culture is spreading to their squares, even
though your territory barrier hasn't expanded? So it gets to a point where
your culture has spread, although invisibly because it would be unfair to
that city if it didn't have any radius, across their territory and city, so
that it just gets too much and they flip to your side? Amongst other things
that is.

 

[contro]

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

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:36:16 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
> The Colloseum and Cathedral are definitely expensive for what they
> give you. Luxuries with marketplaces are a way better deal
> economically for happiness, and you should strive to *own* four
> luxuries, and have sources for at least two more. Ideally, have all
> eight -- the last two luxuries with marketplace yield EIGHT content
> citizens, which is usually enough to make even big cities secure.

True, but easier said than done! For me at least! But if I can be lucky
find a good starting area, with good resources, it would be no problem at
all. I've been put off early wars recently due to always getting badly
damaged. I think I'll have another go though when I start a new game and
see how it goes. As you say, getting those resources would help a lot!

>
> On the temple, I like doing both library and temple for culture --
> the temple makes less, but it is the best deal for the money, and
> cheap enough to rush-buy. If you're religious it should be first
> choice, if not, it still should be put in early for the bonus culture
> (most culture buildings generate extra culture after 1000 years),

yes, and I'm also always worried that if you don't concentrate on some
culture, not only will it stop your borders increasing, but you might well
be susceptible to your city going over to another civ if one is nearby!

>
>> 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?
>
> The big things are culture expansion, and cultural superiority.
> When your city's cultural borders overlap the other city's squares in
> use, there is a sort of "culture struggle." If your city happens to
> have more than half its population of the other culture (this happens
> with newly captured cities often enough), it is much more likely to
> change sides. Military garrisons reduce the chances -- a city with
> twice the population in land garrison (land attack units, no air, sea,
> artillery, etc.) will never flip (as of PTW).
>
> The more your culture is superior to the other, the better the odds
> of flipping. The other key thing is culture *points* in the city --
> if the city has a large culture score itself, it is much less likely
> to flip. Newly built cities, OTOH, are easily overwhelmed -- the AI
> often puts down new cities near mine, and I can more or less ignore
> them, expecting them to convert.
>
> But I've been caught by the same thing, not enough culture
> superiority and pushing cities right on the AI's borders. Doing that
> lets you "capturre" a bit of territory without going to war, if you
> can raise the city culture fast enough, but it risks the city flipping
> because it is within the enemy's cultural area.

yes, just have to be careful really. I want to look into this more, as like
you say, if you can get cities without going to war, it certainly helps!
I'm glad they changed the rule so that if you have a lot of troops in a
city, it won't flip, as not only does it make it more realistic, it would
also be very annoying to lose all those units!

I noticed another change though over the original civ 3 and what is in
conquests....I'm sure when a city pledged allegiance to you, you could
originally either let it come to your side or raize the city. But now, in
conquests, you can either let them come onto your side, or just rebuff them,
not destroy the city anymore. Is that the case, or did I just remember
wrong? It does make more sense the new way anyway, if it was a change!

 

[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: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.

so do the buildings just get abandoned themselves, or do you mean when it
pops up and asks you? I feel bad doing this though, making cities that are
just going to be abandoned! Is it a widely used tactic do you think?

 

[contro]

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

Ambarish wrote:
> In article <Xns94D35F261B2B3kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4>, Kevin
> 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>> "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote in news:c687d8$jk5$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>>
>>> Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>>>> "Contro"
>>>>
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>> wrote in news:c65k4n$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.
>
> Or even simpler, don't build hospitals. You only need uber-cities for
> wonders or those 640-shield SS parts; so one or two such cities is
> enough.
>
> Another possibility is that you capture cities from the AI and make
> them productive. Since the AI cities are always widely spaced, use
> them for wonders/SS parts and your original core for other things,
> like troops.

LOL I think it shows that you guys place your cities close together, as I
always thought the computer cities were sometimes a little too close to each
other!

The problem I have with this sort of tactic though is that, while I'm sure
they work, it just feels like it wouldn't be what should be done, with not
making hospitals or placing cities too close together...LOL sounds daft I
guess, but I feel that I should let cities grow, and not hold them back or
use them and things.

 

[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: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.

So it is actually not really a bad thing at all then? well I'll have a go
at the conquests mission (LOL yet another thing I've not done in the game!
Just so much!) as I'm sure that will get me used to it so I can see what
it's like, and just how the spacing should work (what is counted as "close"
for instance).

I just always thought it would be bad to have cities close together, and
never thought it would be a good thing! How is it that you can never get
all the citizens happy in a city if it is not close to another one though?
I'm sure I've had very happy cities before that were big ones, but I can't
remmeber if all the citizens were happy....so I might have had that one
which was letting the side down!

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I noticed that it had it's bad points. So is it just not worth having
it then? I only tried it out once, but it was on the easiest difficulty
level. But I did notice that it seemed to take me a lot longer in that game
to get to the modern era! Although not sure if that was down to the fascism
or not. Still a bit unsure as to the differences in the governments! LOL
but I know the basic differences.

>
>> 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've seen people mention the rush buiding, but I'm not sure I know what this
is exactly. At first I thought it was just meaning to change the layout of
a cities shield intake and what not on the city screen in order to reduce
the turns needed for the thing being built, but with you saying that, I'm
not sure. Is it as specific option or something that you choose, and have
to pay money for it or something similar?

> 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.

Oh yes, but where I saw something about the sacrificing was somewhere
different, and was from a screenshot I saw on the internet of the advisor
popping up saying "are you sure you want to sacrifice this worker? I know
he's from a foreign civ, but he could be useful" or something similar, and
then saying that if you did sacrifice him you'd get 20 culture points

I'm not sure if it was from a mod or just simply fabricated though. I guess
it could have been either!

>
>> 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.
>

From my experience it seems to be very important, I have to say! Especially
to get it early on to get those better units!

 

[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: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.

aha! That will be where the screenshot was from then. I didn't think I'd
ever seen the option in the game before!

Thanks!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:54:55 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 this is what I meant. There is a icon also to disband. You can
> disband anywhere but if you do so inside a city you get few shields.
> This isn't very helpful in the best cities but can be great in highly
> corruptive cities. I might use this tactic to get a temple or
> courthouse into my weaker cities. If the cities are still relatively
> close to the captital they could become one of my key cities later in
> the game.

yes, I find I sometimes have to disband units because they just cost too
much gold. Do you only get the shields returned if you disband them in a
city, or do you get them regardless of where you disband your unit?

 

[contro]

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

Ambarish wrote:
> In article <c68l9u$efi$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Chastity Blackwell wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I assume you're talking about Conquests. In vanilla or PTW, bombers
> don't have lethal bombing; but unlike artillery they can still be shot
> down by fighters. This renders them pretty much useless beyond
> rocketry (Jet Fighters). I build them only for disbanding in
> low-shield cities 🙂

So do bombers just get shot down automatically if a jet plane is doing an
air-superiority missionm or do they just take some energy off?

 

[contro]

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

The Stare wrote:
> "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.

I play as Rome, and there always seems to be a civ that always establishes
an embassy with me...but I can't remember who it is now! LOL I don't know
if it's linked to anything historically, but it is a bit odd how one does
it, while all the rest don't seem to. That I recall anyway!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I have the very same problem. I've never had more than the standard
number of civs in my game though! I don't know why, as I did pick to play
on a huge map once, but there didn't seem to be any more civs than normal,
and there wasn't any blank spaces left for other civs on the advisor
screen....althought there does seem to be a huge area on the map that no civ
has been to, so I don't know if it's another self-contained game going on
there or something, waiting to be discovered! If it's just water, then
about 3 quaters of the map is water! Not quite what I was expecting from a
huge map! Although the map settings were on random.

 

[Guest]

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

the game only allows you to play with 16 max civilizations even on a huge
map. However, you can get around this by creating a scenario. I've seen at
least one mod at civfanatics where all the civs were allowed to play. I've
set up a few test mods to allow all civs to play, but it takes a lot of cpu
time in between turns especially later in the game. It can be fun though
especially if you give your self a beefed up unit to be available during the
middle of the game....


"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6atua$ei5$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> P12 wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, I have the very same problem. I've never had more than the standard
> number of civs in my game though! I don't know why, as I did pick to play
> on a huge map once, but there didn't seem to be any more civs than normal,
> and there wasn't any blank spaces left for other civs on the advisor
> screen....althought there does seem to be a huge area on the map that no
civ
> has been to, so I don't know if it's another self-contained game going on
> there or something, waiting to be discovered! If it's just water, then
> about 3 quaters of the map is water! Not quite what I was expecting from
a
> huge map! Although the map settings were on random.
>
>

 

[contro]

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

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:36:26 -0400, P12 <nomail@all.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The AI will establish embassies in the early game if it has the
> money, and sometimes will do so later on. My guess is that they must
> have the spare gold. I've often had the AI establish embassies on me,
> when I couldn't afford to get them.
>
> OTOH, I will raise taxes for a bit to raise the money (or sell
> things or whatever) in order to make the embassies when I figure I'll
> need them -- military alliances against a threat are the main early
> use of them, though knowing more about what the AI is up to is always
> nice.

Yes, as I think I mentioned in another post, knowing who is wat war with
whom is very handy, so you can see which nation has many civs at war with
them, so grab some easy victories. Hopefully!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> 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.
>

Yes, that could well have been it, as I have found it very hard in the past
to get civs to sign such treaties. but thinking back on it, the country
that we all went to war with had had many wars with most countries! So I
think it was hated a bit.

>> 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.

Yes, they are pretty dangerous. I don't like signing them when asked by an
computer opponent, as you know they are just going to get you into some war.

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:15:17 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
> Yup that is how it works. Fortunately most won't have a lot of nukes
> since it requires a modern tech and the very rare uranium.

Yes, I remember on one of the earlier games I played I had at least 2
sources of uranium! So that was nice! but I didn't realise it was so rare,
so didn't start any nuclear wars or development, as didn't want to risk
anything bad happening!

>
>> 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?
>
> I don't think the pollution itself takes any more time then standard
> pollution to clean up. The problem is every tile is polluted
> immediately around the city. And unlike standard pollution the roads,
> mines, irrigation, and railroads are all destroyed. All that takes a
> long time to build back up.

yes, true, that would cause a few problems, unless you had a lot of spare
workers.

>
> At that age I don't really need the cities unless they contain an
> important GW. I only bother cleaning up pollution in my own cities.
> Unfortunately if the AI decides to nuke that city again while you are
> cleaning pollution you will loose all your workers. If you have tons
> of spare workers you could probably bring back a few of those cities.
> Or if you just don't care and leave them alone going for a domination
> victory.

ahh, so you could end up losing all your workers if you are not careful?
Well, I guess it just depends really. If you have a big civ you may as well
clean it up and get the new territory. I find that sometimes I have a lot
of workers doing nothing towards the end. But again, I guess it depends on
the number of cities you take over. Usually my workers are on automate, so
I just let them get on with it really. Seems to work okay!