Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:16:08 -0400, Invid Fan <invid@localnet.com>
wrote:

>While you're at peace, look at the map and decide what you'd do if any
>particular nation attacked you. What you'd like to capture, how you'd
>do it, etc. Build transports and place them where you need them,
>building new roads if the shortest distance between your land and the
>invation spot is undeveloped. You'll need some ships to protect the
>transports, but I tend to skimp on these myself. The AI likes bombard
>units like ironclads, and they'll tend to be hanging around your
>important sea coast and not the invation area The key to a good sea
>invation is to a) land a good sized force with defensive units right
>next to a city (with a harbor to help with happiness and give you
>whatever resource you're attacking for, although the harbor might be
>destroyed in the attack), b) keep a steady supply of new troops flowing
>in, preferably with transports able to make a round trip in 2 turns or
>so, c) starve captured cities down to lessen the chance of them
>flipping back to the enemy, and d) don't overextend yourself! The
>temptation to make a run for that large city with a wonder will be
>great, but if all you really need is those two cities with spices just
>take and hold them. There'll be time to take more in the next war,
>after you've rebuilt.

I always try to capture a coastal city as my first take in the new
land. How you load and unload troops can make a big difference in
the length of the war. For instance with a coastal city I can unload
and use my troops in the same turn. Plus they are better defended
within the city. I will rush a barracks to let my troops rest. For
protection I fortify ships at the resting spots in between land
masses. That leaves a permanent escort in place. If you can load and
unload from two different cities you can use the troops in the same
turn in the new land.

 

[alex]

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

"P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message news:t4hp80pvbb7iqmhu6chcmrbbm5mabh7e7q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:16:08 -0400, Invid Fan <invid@localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >While you're at peace, look at the map and decide what you'd do if any
> >particular nation attacked you. What you'd like to capture, how you'd
> >do it, etc. Build transports and place them where you need them,
> >building new roads if the shortest distance between your land and the
> >invation spot is undeveloped. You'll need some ships to protect the
> >transports, but I tend to skimp on these myself. The AI likes bombard
> >units like ironclads, and they'll tend to be hanging around your
> >important sea coast and not the invation area The key to a good sea
> >invation is to a) land a good sized force with defensive units right
> >next to a city (with a harbor to help with happiness and give you
> >whatever resource you're attacking for, although the harbor might be
> >destroyed in the attack), b) keep a steady supply of new troops flowing
> >in, preferably with transports able to make a round trip in 2 turns or
> >so, c) starve captured cities down to lessen the chance of them
> >flipping back to the enemy, and d) don't overextend yourself! The
> >temptation to make a run for that large city with a wonder will be
> >great, but if all you really need is those two cities with spices just
> >take and hold them. There'll be time to take more in the next war,
> >after you've rebuilt.
>
> I always try to capture a coastal city as my first take in the new
> land. How you load and unload troops can make a big difference in
> the length of the war. For instance with a coastal city I can unload
> and use my troops in the same turn. Plus they are better defended
> within the city. I will rush a barracks to let my troops rest. For
> protection I fortify ships at the resting spots in between land
> masses. That leaves a permanent escort in place. If you can load and
> unload from two different cities you can use the troops in the same
> turn in the new land.

In my opinion massive naval invasion is the most exciting part of the game.
Quite often one of my rivals is able to conquer the entire continent
for themselves before I could intervene. Since they do not know
how to conduct overseas operations, virtually all their troops remain
intact on that continent. As a result they have hundreds of MA and MI units
ready to engage the invader (that would be me).

C3C has much stronger naval and air units as opposed to original Civ3,
that is why I prefer C3C.

Choose a peninsula.
Send wave after wave of stealth bombers to destroy railroad network on the isthmus.
On the next turn send stealth bombers to kill the defenders of a coastal city.
Capture that city with an Army of marines (this is a special Army which I build
specifically for this single occasion, this army is amphibious).
Unload all Armies of modern armors into that city and finish that peninsula
on the same turn. D-day.

 

[Guest]

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

"P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
news:4fgp809uml5ledl4fikv9s73lak45mmvon@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:42:36 GMT, "The Stare"
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >There is only room on the foreign advisor screen for 8 civs. The original
> >game was designed for only 8 and having more was an afterthought. In Civ3
> >and PTW, you Shift-right click a leader to get a menu of available civs.
In
> >C3C, once you know of more than 7 others, there is a button at the top
left
> >of the screen to display a menu of other available civs.
>
> A patched version of PTW should also have the menu option to view
> other civs.

Thanx... been awhile since i fired up ptw.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c6bc58$ckg$2@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:

> In article <q43ic.2455$mB1.288@news01.roc.ny>, "The Stare"
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Ethnic cleansing.
>
> You can also assign them all as Civil Engineers so they build as they starve.
>
> Some people prefer Scientists or Tax Collectors.

If a city I have conquered flips, I retake it, then raze it and start a
new city with my own people. Sorta like what we ought to do in Fallouja.

 

[Guest]

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

> > >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.
> >
> > Ethnic cleansing.
>
> If a city I have conquered flips, I retake it, then raze it and start a
> new city with my own people. Sorta like what we ought to do in Fallouja.

i know you're just joking (please say yes), but doing something that
incredibly immoral and stupid would touch off a Holy War on an even
more massive scale than the one were involved in now.

maybe this should be incorporated into the game when you capture an
enemy city; starving the populous and moving in settlers should hinder
democracies by causing 'terrorist attacks', which hurt the economy and
reduce civil rights and in turn, happiness.

eventually, the democracy fails because it longer is able grant basic
human rights (sound familiar) to its citizens and communism or fascism
takes over.

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:16:08 -0400, Invid Fan <invid@localnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> While you're at peace, look at the map and decide what you'd do if
>> any particular nation attacked you. What you'd like to capture, how
>> you'd do it, etc. Build transports and place them where you need
>> them, building new roads if the shortest distance between your land
>> and the invation spot is undeveloped. You'll need some ships to
>> protect the transports, but I tend to skimp on these myself. The AI
>> likes bombard units like ironclads, and they'll tend to be hanging
>> around your important sea coast and not the invation area The key
>> to a good sea invation is to a) land a good sized force with
>> defensive units right next to a city (with a harbor to help with
>> happiness and give you whatever resource you're attacking for,
>> although the harbor might be destroyed in the attack), b) keep a
>> steady supply of new troops flowing in, preferably with transports
>> able to make a round trip in 2 turns or so, c) starve captured
>> cities down to lessen the chance of them flipping back to the enemy,
>> and d) don't overextend yourself! The temptation to make a run for
>> that large city with a wonder will be great, but if all you really
>> need is those two cities with spices just take and hold them.
>> There'll be time to take more in the next war, after you've rebuilt.
>
> I always try to capture a coastal city as my first take in the new
> land. How you load and unload troops can make a big difference in
> the length of the war. For instance with a coastal city I can unload
> and use my troops in the same turn. Plus they are better defended
> within the city. I will rush a barracks to let my troops rest. For
> protection I fortify ships at the resting spots in between land
> masses. That leaves a permanent escort in place. If you can load and
> unload from two different cities you can use the troops in the same
> turn in the new land.

that is a good idea, especially with fortifying ships in a route that you
will take! The problem I have though is that I just don't do much army
making. Well, I do, but with ships and things I am usually lacking quite a
lot. I normally go into this area when I'm doing well and have taken over a
bit of land in the modern era. But I will certainly try to position ships
so that I can use a route to get to one place to another, as that will
certainly get rid of any worries about being ambushed when transporting
troops.

 

[contro]

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

alex wrote:
> "P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
> news:t4hp80pvbb7iqmhu6chcmrbbm5mabh7e7q@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:16:08 -0400, Invid Fan <invid@localnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While you're at peace, look at the map and decide what you'd do if
>>> any particular nation attacked you. What you'd like to capture, how
>>> you'd do it, etc. Build transports and place them where you need
>>> them, building new roads if the shortest distance between your land
>>> and the invation spot is undeveloped. You'll need some ships to
>>> protect the transports, but I tend to skimp on these myself. The AI
>>> likes bombard units like ironclads, and they'll tend to be hanging
>>> around your important sea coast and not the invation area The
>>> key to a good sea invation is to a) land a good sized force with
>>> defensive units right next to a city (with a harbor to help with
>>> happiness and give you whatever resource you're attacking for,
>>> although the harbor might be destroyed in the attack), b) keep a
>>> steady supply of new troops flowing in, preferably with transports
>>> able to make a round trip in 2 turns or so, c) starve captured
>>> cities down to lessen the chance of them flipping back to the
>>> enemy, and d) don't overextend yourself! The temptation to make a
>>> run for that large city with a wonder will be great, but if all you
>>> really need is those two cities with spices just take and hold
>>> them. There'll be time to take more in the next war, after you've
>>> rebuilt.
>>
>> I always try to capture a coastal city as my first take in the new
>> land. How you load and unload troops can make a big difference in
>> the length of the war. For instance with a coastal city I can unload
>> and use my troops in the same turn. Plus they are better defended
>> within the city. I will rush a barracks to let my troops rest. For
>> protection I fortify ships at the resting spots in between land
>> masses. That leaves a permanent escort in place. If you can load
>> and unload from two different cities you can use the troops in the
>> same turn in the new land.
>
> In my opinion massive naval invasion is the most exciting part of the
> game.
> Quite often one of my rivals is able to conquer the entire continent
> for themselves before I could intervene. Since they do not know
> how to conduct overseas operations, virtually all their troops remain
> intact on that continent. As a result they have hundreds of MA and MI
> units
> ready to engage the invader (that would be me).
>

Surely that would make it a bit hard for you to attack them though?!

> C3C has much stronger naval and air units as opposed to original Civ3,
> that is why I prefer C3C.
>

Yes, conquests does have a lot of nicer features, I have to admit! From
what I have seen anyway.

> Choose a peninsula.
> Send wave after wave of stealth bombers to destroy railroad network
> on the isthmus.
> On the next turn send stealth bombers to kill the defenders of a
> coastal city.
> Capture that city with an Army of marines (this is a special Army
> which I build specifically for this single occasion, this army is
> amphibious).
> Unload all Armies of modern armors into that city and finish that
> peninsula
> on the same turn. D-day.

LOL does sound great! I've yet to make any stealth bombers though, as
there just isn't enough time to research them (I always finish once I've won
too). Do you get to make them during normal game time, or do you get them
after 2050?

 

[contro]

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

Robert Underhill wrote:
> In article <c6bc58$ckg$2@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
> mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:
>
>> In article <q43ic.2455$mB1.288@news01.roc.ny>, "The Stare"
>> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ethnic cleansing.
>>
>> You can also assign them all as Civil Engineers so they build as
>> they starve.
>>
>> Some people prefer Scientists or Tax Collectors.
>
> If a city I have conquered flips, I retake it, then raze it and start
> a new city with my own people. Sorta like what we ought to do in
> Fallouja.

without meaning to start a bitter argument, if you did that, I don't think
you'd ever see the end of terrorism! It's not likely you will now for the
next 100 years, so lets hope it doesn't come to making things even worse!

Speaking of which though, how do you think terrorism should be handled in
civ? I was thinking that it should be a good part of it if done right. I'd
say from history we can see that terrorism only happens in Democracies
(General Franco executed any ETA terrorists in Spain until he had to try to
be a bit more "liberal" when trying to join the EEC, and look at any police
state and I think you'd agree that resistance doesn't exist), so it seems to
me that Democracy could well suffer terrorism....but only if you have a
horrible foreign policy, or have taken over lots of places in a modern era.
Obviously if you do it in the past, advanced terrorist methods won't be
available (can't cause much terror with a crossbow - compared to a bomb at
least). I guess it would occur from cities that you have taken over from
another civ or just acted harshly in general, so you'd get outsider
terrorists (much like America is experiencing! Britiain too a bit).

Would be an interesting concept!

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c6ar6g$jso$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>>> 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!
>
> Scientific Great Leader. New with Conquests. They can be used to
> increase
> you overall research rate or they can rush great wonders. As opposed
> to
> Military Great Leaders (MGL) which can become Armies or rush some
> small
> wonders.

ahh, I see! I've never had one of them! I've had the MGL one though, but
not a science equivalent.

 

[contro]

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

The Stare wrote:
> "Mike Garcia" <mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> wrote in
> message news:c6bcar$ckg$3@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In article <c6ar6g$jso$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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!
>>
>> Scientific Great Leader. New with Conquests. They can be used to
>> increase you overall research rate or they can rush great wonders.
>> As opposed to Military Great Leaders (MGL) which can become Armies
>> or rush some small wonders.
>
> Using a SGL to increase science is broken. The turns will initially
> decrease in the display, BUT if you count the turns, it still takes
> the same # as it would without. In fact, all thru the scientific age,
> the science slider will act strange.
>
> Therefore, SGL is only good for rushing wonders and improvements.
> Hopefully, this will get fixed before they blow us off.

That's a shame. I hate it when they have all these bugs. At least they do
usually fix them, and I guess it is hard to test civ3 completely in a short
space of time, but even so!

 

[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:c6aruq$3r7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
>>> om> wrote in news:c687d8$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?
>
> Building temp cities is a controversial subject. Some consider it an
> exploit and others consider it a legit strategy. Any competitive
> games you may eventually get into, make sure to read the rules first.

Yes, I'm a bit dubious. Well, again, I think I'll see how it goes until
using that. I like to have the places look nice and things, and treat it
just like I would do normally. but some have said that cities close to each
other do well...so I don't know what to think really.

 

[contro]

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

Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:59:51 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>>> But, the advice often given is to ignore overlap. In fact, overlap
>>> is good. Overlap works. Overlap leads to happiness and
>>> prosperity... If I have to sacrifice 3 to 5 squares, so be it. I'm
>>> still very productive, especially in my urban centers, throughout
>>> the game. Plus my culture spreads like warm butter on a muffin,
>>> meaning my competing civs can snatch land out from under me quite
>>> as easily.
>>
>> is this because they will flip to you one day because you will gain
>> a lot of culture? Or simply because they are not gettingbetween
>> your cities, since they are close together? You do promote it well
>> though!
>
> I meant to say that the other civs CAN'T snatch land out from under
> me... I'm not too concerned about flipping other cities to me, be
> cause my jackbooted thugs will take those cities soon enough 🙂
>

ahhh! LOL sorry!

> My aim is to stop wandering settlers from getting into my nooks and
> crannies and planting cities too close to me.

Yes, it certainly does help to get rid of that from happening. I'm just not
sure what to do really. I'll have to think about it! It's just that I'm
thinking whether I'd benefit anyway from doing it, from my style of play, as
it might just mean I end up with less land because my cities are all close
together.

>
>>> I play DyP almost exclusively now, and it seems to me that coliseums
>>> are very valuable, especially if you achieve the Circuis Maximus
>>> Wonder. Markets are important, and even through I play with all
>>> victory conditions off except military, cultural domination is still
>>> central to my strategy.
>>>
>>
>> ahh, so I guess, like someone mentioned earlier on, with the mods the
>> strategies needed are a lot different than the usual civ?!
>
> Not really. I play DyP the way I play Civ, except that there is just
> more stuff to do. Another thing I like is that with so many wonders,
> if Civ X beats me to Wonder A, there is typically a Wonder B that will
> give me similar results.

Yes, I can see how that would be good. Although do you think it takes away
from making a wonder do you think?

But, as you say, having more to do is always a good thing!

>
>>> In reading these threads I noticed you've been curious about mods
>>> but are sticking with straight civ... Let me strongly suggest you
>>> rethink that and give DyP a whirl. It's as close to a perfect mod
>>> as you can get. Plus it's creator haunts this group and is very
>>> helpful.
>>>
>>
>> that is always a help! Why, who is it? It's not you is it? LOL
>
> No... It isn't me. 🙂

LOL who is it?!

>
>> But I'll
>> definitely play Double Your Pleasure, as well as the Missing Links,
>> as they both do look very interesting, and a good take on the game!
>> Plus a lot of people have spoke highly of them both from what I can
>> see, so I don't think that many people could be too far wrong! but
>> it's just that I would like to get the hang of the main game first
>> before I try the mods out. Don't want to run before I can walk and
>> all that! But I will try them.
>>
>>> DyP provides a greater assortment of everything... More techs, more
>>> wonders, and so on... One thing I like above all else is that along
>>> with boasting a great assortment of units including cultural
>>> variations, it also sports a logical upgrade path for every unit
>>> type from beginning to end.
>>
>> I am very tempted to just start trying them now, I have to admit!
>> But as I say, I think it would be a better idea to get used to the
>> original game first, as there are a lot of basic rules I don't know
>> or understand yet, nerermind having lots of new ones added!
>
> Do it. Do it now. You know you want to...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd

LOL I will do, dont worry! At the moment I can't really though, as I've
got a bit on at the moment. but I will do soon! not played civ for a week
or so now. I hate being busy!

 

[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:c6atgj$501$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 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?
>
> Only if you disband them in a city that is not building a great or
> small wonder.

ahhh, I see!

>
> (i gotta comment... one person has not been this active in this ng in
> a very very very long time.
> Do you ever actually play?)

LOL well I do, but at the moment I've just had a lot of work to do, so I've
not really had chance to. So since I can't play, the next best thing is to
talk about it, especially with the build up of questions I got from playing!
I wasn't even able to post for the past few days, which you might have
noticed, but I've got a spare hour or two again now.

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:47:41 -0400, P12 <nomail@all.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Yes this is what I meant. There is a icon also to disband.
>
> I also forgot what you mentioned in another post, the true sacrifice
> option in the MesoAmerica scenarios in Conquests. I only played them
> once; didn't care for them.

I'll give them a try, see what I think! but again, so much to do in civ!

>
> 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.
>
> I once marched a stack of 20 old spearmen across hill and dale to dump
> their disbands into a border city and get a temple most quickly.
>
> Steve

LOL sounds like a good plan! I'll definitely be doing this in future

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c6atch$klj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote: <snip>
>>
>> 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?
>
> It is using the "Hurry Production" option or button. Right click on
> the city
> and it should be one of the options. Under some governments you will
> kill
> some of your people and make the rest unhappy for a while. Under
> other
> governments you will spend money. In general you can't hurry wonders.
>

ahh, yes, the forced labour or what not...I always wondered what that meant
exactly in the descriptions. I thought it was just talking in general about
the government type, and that it would be some of the effects you might
receive from it (such as people becoming unhappy, or people being killed,
like you say, or something), not that it was because of hurrying up. Thanks
for this, certainly a good thing to know!

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c6atch$klj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>> Steve Bartman wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> 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!
>
> I think you guys are too inflexible.

LOL

>
> Early on you can use Horsemen in place of Swordsmen and more Spearmen
> in place
> of Pikemen. Longbows make perfectly acceptable offensive units. You
> really
> don't _need_ Iron until the Industrial Age.
>

well, I guess it's the same difference really...but if you have iron, you
can have good defensive units and offensive ones. Plus they can get
upgraded a lot better.

> I figure that in the Ancient Times you need either Horses or Iron to
> conduct
> an easy offensive. Doing it with Archers is possible but more
> difficult.
>
> In the Middle Ages you are going to need Saltpeter.
>
> In the Industrial Age you will need Iron (for railroads and
> Factories).

I always seem to be struggling for coal at this point! Really annoying, as
you will either luckily have it or not, since it will most likely be
impossible to build a city near it.

I once seemed to have a great wonder that kept churning out ancient cavalry,
by the way. Do you know which one this was? I'd never seen it before that
time. Is it the art of war do you know?

 

[Guest]

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

The temple of zeus and the temple of artemis both produce units. They are
good if you want to go to war a lot. the unit cost adds up if you don't use
them to loose a few or gain new cities to help pay for them.

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6omsi$n48$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Mike Garcia wrote:
> > In article <c6atch$klj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote:
> >> Steve Bartman wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>>
> >>> 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!
> >
> > I think you guys are too inflexible.
>
> LOL
>
> >
> > Early on you can use Horsemen in place of Swordsmen and more Spearmen
> > in place
> > of Pikemen. Longbows make perfectly acceptable offensive units. You
> > really
> > don't _need_ Iron until the Industrial Age.
> >
>
> well, I guess it's the same difference really...but if you have iron, you
> can have good defensive units and offensive ones. Plus they can get
> upgraded a lot better.
>
> > I figure that in the Ancient Times you need either Horses or Iron to
> > conduct
> > an easy offensive. Doing it with Archers is possible but more
> > difficult.
> >
> > In the Middle Ages you are going to need Saltpeter.
> >
> > In the Industrial Age you will need Iron (for railroads and
> > Factories).
>
> I always seem to be struggling for coal at this point! Really annoying,
as
> you will either luckily have it or not, since it will most likely be
> impossible to build a city near it.
>
> I once seemed to have a great wonder that kept churning out ancient
cavalry,
> by the way. Do you know which one this was? I'd never seen it before
that
> time. Is it the art of war do you know?
>
>

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:57:36 GMT,
> mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:
>
>
>> I think you guys are too inflexible.
>
> No, I recognize there are other ways, it's just that you need more
> units of non-iron types to get the same bang, and that eats up time.
>
> Usually horses are easier to get than iron, but horsemen die by the
> score on offense. Give me a nice stack of swordsmen any time.
>
>> Early on you can use Horsemen in place of Swordsmen and more
>> Spearmen in place of Pikemen. Longbows make perfectly acceptable
>> offensive units.
>
> Yeah, but well along in the tech tree. Swordsmen help you knock off
> that pesky neighbor and get some growth room.
>
>> In the Middle Ages you are going to need Saltpeter.
>
> I usually get by fine on pikemen until riflemen.
>
>> In the Industrial Age you will need Iron (for railroads and
>> Factories).
>
> Agree. Rails are necessary for the output boost you need to compete in
> the late game.
>
> Steve

I agree too, railways are very important! And just nice to have too!

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:06:56 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I noticed that it had it's bad points. So is it just not worth
>> having it then?
>
> I'll amend what I said and say fascism and fundie can be useful if
> you're a religious civ and can flip in and out of them in one turn. A
> non-religious civ you'll be in anarchy for about five turns on each
> side and that can put you way behind in research and production.
>

How is a religious civ defined? Is this based on what you have made, or is
it one of the characteristics of certain civs?

> But if you're going to be in a long war, AD you have a big pot of gold
> to survive the economic hit and still keep your research up, I suppose
> they have uses.
>

that's how it was when I was on the easiest difficulty. But I guess by the
same difference, you could spend more on making people happy.

> 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.
>
> Study the Civ-opedia closely. Few things are as important to the
> game's strategies than understanding the pros and cons of the
> government types. And all have cons. None are perfect for all
> situations.
>

yes, I do have a look, but just wasn't sure if I did suffer much as a
consequence of using facsism, so was just wondering what you thought of
fascism.

> DYP adds a bunch of new ones, which I like.
>

Yes,I do like the look of the new ones!

>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> There are ways to finish a unit or city building in one turn. Some
> governments require spending gold, some force you to kill one or two
> citizens from the city. (If the city is too small it won't let you do
> it though.) You can also disband obsolete unit inside a city and get
> some of their shield cost back, which goes into the production shield
> box for whatever you're building.

Yes, I understand this now. Thanks for that! Was a little unsure about the
options for forced labour and all that...but I see how to use it now.

>
> 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?
>
> It depends on which government you're in. The primitive governments,
> plus communism, require sacrificing citizens. The more modern
> governments require you spend money to rush.
>
> Rushing can be especially useful early when you're in a race to build
> cities on the best land. You can sacrifice two citizens to rush a
> settler unit and save sometimes 30+ turns waiting for it to build
> normally. If the rushing city has a good food supply it'll replace
> those two lost citizens in less than the 30+ turns it would have taken
> to build the settler normally, especially if the "sacrificial" city
> has a granary.

I think this will certainly help me earlier on, as I just never knew about
this. No wonder I was always quite far behind no city improvements!

>
>> 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?
>
> The MesoAmerican scenarios in Conquests have sacrifice (like the
> Aztecs did historically) of war captives to keep the people happy.
> This isn't there in the core game.

I'll have a go at that one time, see what it's like! Sounds interesting,
but the normal game is too!

>
> 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
>
> In those scenarios. In the core game a captured worker is just as
> useful as a native worker, but always stays a "citizen" of the civ
> that built him, even when that civ has been totally wiped out. Sort of
> like hereditary slavery without calling it that. The game keeps track
> of these guys at the bottom of the F3 screen.


I really like the way it does that. Just keeps a bit of history going for
your conquests. I remember once I had so many different types! I even had
a barbarian worker at one point! That was interesting!

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:51:39 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:


>How is a religious civ defined? Is this based on what you have made, or is
>it one of the characteristics of certain civs?

One of the characteristics. Each civ has two-religious, commercial,
seafaring, agricultural, industrious, militaristic, scientific,
expansionist. They're in the civopedia, and you get told them at the
intro screen, along with your starting techs. Those are
hotpoints--click on them if you don't know what they mean.

>> But if you're going to be in a long war, AD you have a big pot of gold
>> to survive the economic hit and still keep your research up, I suppose
>> they have uses.
>>
>
>that's how it was when I was on the easiest difficulty. But I guess by the
>same difference, you could spend more on making people happy.

The whole game is about guns vs. butter.

>> DYP adds a bunch of new ones, which I like.
>>
>
>Yes,I do like the look of the new ones!

Constitutional monarchy and federated republic are good modern
trade-off governments. Once I get in either I usually don't change.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:47:33 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rushing can be especially useful early when you're in a race to build
>> cities on the best land. You can sacrifice two citizens to rush a
>> settler unit and save sometimes 30+ turns waiting for it to build
>> normally. If the rushing city has a good food supply it'll replace
>> those two lost citizens in less than the 30+ turns it would have
>> taken to build the settler normally, especially if the "sacrificial"
>> city has a granary.
>
> I just want to point out if you try to rush on the first turn the cost
> is much greater than if you wait a bit.

Thanks! Makes sense really. I'll keep that in mind!

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:52:06 +0000 (UTC), Ambarish
> <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yeah, but artillery can't do deep interdiction strikes.
>
> This renders them pretty much useless beyond rocketry
>> (Jet Fighters). I build them only for disbanding in low-shield cities
>> 🙂
>
> The default chance of interception is what, 50%? And bombers win some
> of those. You also force the AI to spend resources making fighters and
> not defense. Mass bombers in one attacking city and send waves. Even
> if the AI has a couple of jet fighters the back end of the raid gets
> through and you take out maybe 16-turns worth of mines, roads, and
> farms.
>
> I don't use bombers to attack units or cities much. I use them to
> pillage. Cut a city off from iron and rubber before laying siege. Cut
> the civ off from its luxuries. You'll have a different ballgame.
>
> Steve

I'll certainly be trying out the tactics of attacking their roads and what
not with bombarding. I've not done this before, and it would be handy!

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:20:49 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>
>> While having more than 16 civs sounds amazing, I can't even seem to
>> get that many! Well, I've only played knowingly on a huge map once,
>> but then I only had 8 civs...at least on the advisor screen there is
>> only room for 8 civ leaders anyway. I'm sure though that there were
>> 16 (or 15 even) civ options to pick from when I started the game
>> (all set to random).
>
> You sound like you've played enough to enjoy a few of the scenarios
> included on the disk. No need to go looking for more yet. Try the
> Teturkhan (sp?) series, especially starting with the pre-made
> historical cities. That scenario lets you play with up to 32 civs as I
> recall.
>
> Hint--try China or India if a beginner. DON'T play Israel. <g>
>
> Steve

LOL I will do, next time I get some time to play! There is just so much to
play on this game and so much to try out!

 

[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:c6bc8i$vt3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Tzar Sasha wrote:
>>> 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....
>>
>> While having more than 16 civs sounds amazing, I can't even seem to
>> get that many! Well, I've only played knowingly on a huge map once,
>> but then I only had 8 civs...at least on the advisor screen there is
>> only room for 8 civ leaders anyway. I'm sure though that there were
>> 16 (or 15 even) civ options to pick from when I started the game
>> (all set to random).
>>
>> But the thing that is strange is that there is a big area on the map
>> in this game, that I haven't seen yet, nor have any of the computer
>> players if going by their world maps is to be believed, which is the
>> same size as the continent that all the 8 civs are on. So I don't
>> know if there is a new world out there, hidden away!
>>
>> But basically, when you choose a huge map, you always get 16 civs,
>> unless otherwise changed, don't you?
>
> In the game setup screen, where you pick your civ, i think 8 of the 15
> oppenents are set to none by default (assuming you choose huge map).
> You need to always check the rival civs in the setup to make sure the
> proper # are set to random instead of none.

Yes,I was sure I did this...hmm

>
> Note that resource appearance is directly tied to the # of civs in
> the game. Therefore, if you play a huge map w/ only 8 civs, those
> horses could be a very long way away.

ahh, I see! Crikey, that might make things a bit difficult! But well, good
if you can get the resources!

>
> There is only room on the foreign advisor screen for 8 civs. The
> original game was designed for only 8 and having more was an
> afterthought. In Civ3 and PTW, you Shift-right click a leader to get
> a menu of available civs. In C3C, once you know of more than 7
> others, there is a button at the top left of the screen to display a
> menu of other available civs.

ahh, this might well be what it is! I'll try this out! Thanks!

 

[contro]

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

Tzar Sasha wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c6bc8i$vt3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> <snippity snippity snip>
>>
>> But basically, when you choose a huge map, you always get 16 civs,
>> unless otherwise changed, don't you?
>>
> Yep, that's correct.
> When I set up a game to play, I always go through the New game option
> rather than using quick start. Quick start always uses the settings
> from the last game played including what civ you picked and what
> opponents and how many you may have selected. I prefer to have the
> ability to make changes if necessary.

Yes, I always do that as well. I like the feel of doing it as well, and the
music. I think it is a good way to start, and builds it up a bit!