Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6om59$lnp$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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.

The closer they are to the capital, the less they suffer from distance
corruption which is the worse type.

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6omg0$aj0$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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.

LOL... i noticed when i fired up the newsreader

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:17:10 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>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?

You have to turn of space race and diplomatic victory conditions if
you want a modern era game. Some people Mod their game so the last
space race part doesn't get built until the end of modern era.

 

[Guest]

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

"Tzar Sasha" <ZarSasha@localnet.com> wrote in
news:108vrsj7b20f636@corp.supernews.com:

> 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.

AFAIK, the temple of Zeus produces ancient cavalry. The temple of
Artemis gives you temples in all of your cities.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison

 

[alex]

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

"Contro" <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote in message
news:c6ole8$lf0$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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?

C3C stealth bomber is expensive, but powerful.
They can double the speed with which I capture
enemy cities by destroying radar towers located
behind those cities, they can cut off enemy access
to strategic resources, they can sink enemy convoys
approaching my shores and a lot more...

On Regent level it's hard to finish technology tree
in time, I have to agree. In modern era AI research
is virtually stalled and they have no money to fund
the research of human player. You have to pay the whole
price of world progress by yourself.

On Emperor level I do only 50%-70% of technologies
in Modern era, the rest is done by the AI. I usually let
them research the branch growing from Fission and Rocketry.
In addition AI-governed nations have money to pay high
royalties, so I can keep research funding at 100%
during first half of Modern era.

Emperor/Standard map time schedule is approximately
like this in my games:
1650 Hoover dam (usually triggers my golden age)
1750 end of industrial era
1760 computers
1820 synthetic fibers
1850 stealth
1950 integrated defense

I usually proceed to world conquest in 1800, double my
territory to bring it to optimum size and, if possible,
try to take control of my entire continent by 1850.
IMHO 50 turns between 1850 and 1950 is unsuitable for
large wars because of nuclear threat. I spend this time
building improvements in newly acquired cities and
building modern military based on Armies of MA, stealth
bombers and radar artillery. So by 1950 I have fully
functioning empire of optimal size and military armed to
their teeth, including two-three dozen of stealth bombers.

The remaining 100 turns is usually enough to wage four or five
large-scale wars and conquer all three or four rivals
still remaining on the map. I have to admit, though, that in
some 25% cases the game ends before the world conquest is
finished. It's actually a good thing because I cannot relax
until the game is over.

Naturally, I have to disable all kinds of victory conditions
except world conquest.

 

[contro]

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

Commando Line 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.
>>
>> 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.

I'm not sure about these being ways into fascism or communism. Countries
usually fall into them due to either force (Russia in 1917 or whenever it
was for communism) or because the people are sick of everything else (Italy
in 1923 or whenever for fascism).

I sort of mentioned this in my other post, but I think terrorists would
attack if you were in a democracy, as you say, and had territory which
certain people wanted to reclaim (IRA, ETA, most terrorist groups) which
would be as a result of occupation/wars against other countries (al-qaeda is
valid at this point too). Obviously if your government results in a police
state (as would be the case with facism and perhaps communism), then person
with a hint of revolt in them would be killed, most likely in a horrific
way, and possibly in public, depending on how "public" the oppression of
those types is wanted to be. So terrorism isn't likely in places such as
North Korea for instance. So in Civ, perhaps governments could have a
"terrorism level" as well as war weariness and the like. With democracy it
would be the highest, and with facism it would be non-existent. Would
almost make more reason for having a fascist government too!

Terrorism could be occur in ways such as sabotaging the creation of city
improvements, blowing up existing ones, killing the population etc. I'd say
there is a lot which could determine if you would get attacked by
terrorists. But the most likely things would be if your cities are close to
the civ they used to belong to, with culture having a role (your total
culture and just for that city on its own as well as compared to those
neighbouring cities/whole civ((but not a complete say, just lessening the
likelyhood)). Also, the cities affected by terrorism are most likely to be
the bigger ones: ones with wonders (which are likely targets perhaps - might
not be destroyed, but could lose the benefits for a turn or two) and
obviously the capital.

Only ways to help prevent terrorism would be to be on good terms with the
civs with which you have taken cities from, via trades or in general, or for
you to have wiped them out completely.

Obviously terrorism would always be a threat, regardless of not having
foreign cities or not or taking preventative measures such as the two
mentioned above, but having foreign cities or not taking those measures
would increase the likelyhood of attack. And of course, the government type
increases/decreases the likelyhood as well.

I hope the Double your Pleasure and the Missing Links creators are reading!
Would be a good addition, I think! And I don't charge much ;-) just
kidding.

 

[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:c6om59$lnp$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 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.
>
> The closer they are to the capital, the less they suffer from distance
> corruption which is the worse type.

ahh, I see. Well, I guess if it doesn't do that much hard, it's not a bad
thing. I'll see though!

 

[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:c6omg0$aj0$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 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.
>
> LOL... i noticed when i fired up the newsreader

Well, got to keep you busy! LOL Hope you don't mind

 

[contro]

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

Tzar Sasha wrote:
> 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.

It was quite handy when that was happenng! I think it was the temple of
zeus which I had bullt. I was at war at the time, so reinforcements kept
coming, and dieing, so it wasn't costing too much. In the end, I got a huge
empire thanks to those ancient cavalry.

>
> "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?

--
Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there

 

[contro]

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

Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> "Tzar Sasha" <ZarSasha@localnet.com> wrote in
> news:108vrsj7b20f636@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> 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.
>
> AFAIK, the temple of Zeus produces ancient cavalry. The temple of
> Artemis gives you temples in all of your cities.

you could well be right. I can say that I was sure it was the temple of
zeus I made, since Kevin mentioned it, and it was ancient cavalry I was
getting too.

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I was quite sure that is how you meant it, but there has been a few
things that I wasn't sure of, so I thought I'd just ask.

>
>>> 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.

LOL true. Personally, I prefer butter on my toast, but that's me ;-)

>
>>> 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.

I was always a bit unsure about civ not having constitutional monarchy, as
really that is one of the main reasons England/Britain became so powerful.
I know it's only one country or what not, but it did have a good effect!
Did other countries have constitutional monarchies too? to an extent?
Germany had a parliament back when they had a Kaiser didn't they? But how
much the people had a say in might be questionable!

 

[contro]

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

P12 wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:17:10 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> You have to turn of space race and diplomatic victory conditions if
> you want a modern era game. Some people Mod their game so the last
> space race part doesn't get built until the end of modern era.

Yes, it does seem that you are always likely to get the space race victory
long before you finish the end of the modern era, so it is hard to go for
the other techs since it might mean you'll lose!

I might try turning those victories off one day, or just play for longer
after the game has finished in order to tinker with the stealth bombers and
other things I never play long enough to get

 

[hank]

Archived from groups: alt.fan.hank-campbell,alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 28 Apr 2004 13:58:58 -0700, commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line)
enlightened me with:

>> > >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.

What should have been instituted all along is a points penalty for
being hated/distrusted. As it stands now. AI countries break
agreements all of the time without penalty to each other and generally
act in despicable ways.

Prestige penalties that actually mean something if agreements are
broken or atrocities are committed would curb that. Obviously
terrorism can be reacted to more harshly than a peaceful city that is
razed for no reason.

To prevent ridiculous penalties they would have to fix the treaty
silliness where the last agreement you sign is the one enforced, so
that you aren't forced to go to war one turn after you declare peace,
etc.

H

Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!

 

[Guest]

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

Sorry got my wonders mixed up. it's actually The Statue of Zeus that gives
the ancient calvary and I thought it was the temple of artemis that did the
crusader, but guess I was wrong on that one. Whatever one does the
crusader, I've got it in my current game...

"Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D9B32C923E3kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
> "Tzar Sasha" <ZarSasha@localnet.com> wrote in
> news:108vrsj7b20f636@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > 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.
>
> AFAIK, the temple of Zeus produces ancient cavalry. The temple of
> Artemis gives you temples in all of your cities.
>
> --
> ICQ: 8105495
> AIM: KeeperGFA
> EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
> "If we did the things we are capable of,
> we would astound ourselves." - Edison

 

[Guest]

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

In my current game i got the statue of zeus and the one that gives a
crusader every 5 turns. So I decided to go to war. Bye-Bye Japan and the
Zulu are almost gone and then the continent will be mine all mine
hahahahha.....
"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6phv6$d1c$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Tzar Sasha wrote:
> > The temple of zeus and the temple of artemis both produce units.
> > They are good if you want to go to war a lot. the unit cost adds up
> > if you don't use them to loose a few or gain new cities to help pay
> > for them.
>
> It was quite handy when that was happenng! I think it was the temple of
> zeus which I had bullt. I was at war at the time, so reinforcements kept
> coming, and dieing, so it wasn't costing too much. In the end, I got a
huge
> empire thanks to those ancient cavalry.
>
> >
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c6omsi$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?
>
> --
> Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there
>
>

 

[Bob]

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

If you fortify transports (or galleys, etc) with those protector ships, you
can use the old Pony Express trick to ferry your troops across the water in
a single move. When the first ship has reached the mid-ocean stack,
right-click on the whole stack and unload the transported troops, then load
them into the fresh ship, which you then activate and move on fully loaded
to the next stack, until you unload the fresh troops in the captured port
city and roar off for more conquest!

Make sure you have a stream of transports coming back through the ocean "way
stations" to keep the conveyor going...

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c6ol9p$5bt$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c6um5a$dpb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
>
> Oh, and is there any real difference between Monarchy and Republic? I'm
> always a bit unsure which to go for. I can't remember what the difference
> was now...sure it wasn't anything noticable

In vanilla/PTW, the choice is clear. Unless you're playing AW, Monarchy
is useless. The corruption in Monarchy is worse; in addition, Republic
(alongwith Democracy) has bonus commerce (every worked square producing
atleast one commerce produces one more). The downside of Republic is
that it has War-weariness, and no MPs or free unit support. In practice,
the WW is not as severe as in Democracy, and can easily be offset by
using the Lux tax. Lack of MPs isn't a problem if you connect up and/or
trade for Luxuries. I almost never use Monarchy unless, as above, I'm
playing AW. Note that the Monarchy tech is still useful for building HG.

Quite frankly, Republic was over-powered. Firaxis/Atari fixed it a
little in C3C by increasing unit/support for Republic. But they didn't
want to weaken Republic too much, so they added some free unit support.
People still think Republic is a better alternative in C3C, but there's
no consensus as yet. Disclaimer: I don't have C3C.

--
Ambarish

 

[Guest]

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

I do have C3C and have usually gone the Republic & Democracy route to play
my games. But this time I tried something different and went with Monarchy.
I will tell you from experience that for a peaceful game and/or defensive
posture Republic & Democracy is the way to go. But if you are in it for war
or want to have a sustained war, Monarchy is the best of the two early
governments.

"Ambarish Sridharanarayanan" <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote in message
news:c6up4n$5jv$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> In article <c6um5a$dpb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and is there any real difference between Monarchy and Republic? I'm
> > always a bit unsure which to go for. I can't remember what the
difference
> > was now...sure it wasn't anything noticable
>
> In vanilla/PTW, the choice is clear. Unless you're playing AW, Monarchy
> is useless. The corruption in Monarchy is worse; in addition, Republic
> (alongwith Democracy) has bonus commerce (every worked square producing
> atleast one commerce produces one more). The downside of Republic is
> that it has War-weariness, and no MPs or free unit support. In practice,
> the WW is not as severe as in Democracy, and can easily be offset by
> using the Lux tax. Lack of MPs isn't a problem if you connect up and/or
> trade for Luxuries. I almost never use Monarchy unless, as above, I'm
> playing AW. Note that the Monarchy tech is still useful for building HG.
>
> Quite frankly, Republic was over-powered. Firaxis/Atari fixed it a
> little in C3C by increasing unit/support for Republic. But they didn't
> want to weaken Republic too much, so they added some free unit support.
> People still think Republic is a better alternative in C3C, but there's
> no consensus as yet. Disclaimer: I don't have C3C.
>
> --
> Ambarish

 

[contro]

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

bob wrote:
> If you fortify transports (or galleys, etc) with those protector
> ships, you can use the old Pony Express trick to ferry your troops
> across the water in a single move. When the first ship has reached
> the mid-ocean stack, right-click on the whole stack and unload the
> transported troops, then load them into the fresh ship, which you
> then activate and move on fully loaded to the next stack, until you
> unload the fresh troops in the captured port city and roar off for
> more conquest!
>
> Make sure you have a stream of transports coming back through the
> ocean "way stations" to keep the conveyor going...

LOL I never even thought of that! I didn't think you could do it! That
should certainly help a lot! Thank you! cheeky but clever!

>
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c6ol9p$5bt$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 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.

--
Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there

 

[contro]

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

Hank wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2004 13:58:58 -0700, commandoLine@yahoo.com (Commando Line)
> enlightened me with:
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> What should have been instituted all along is a points penalty for
> being hated/distrusted. As it stands now. AI countries break
> agreements all of the time without penalty to each other and generally
> act in despicable ways.
>
> Prestige penalties that actually mean something if agreements are
> broken or atrocities are committed would curb that. Obviously
> terrorism can be reacted to more harshly than a peaceful city that is
> razed for no reason.
>
> To prevent ridiculous penalties they would have to fix the treaty
> silliness where the last agreement you sign is the one enforced, so
> that you aren't forced to go to war one turn after you declare peace,
> etc.
>
> H

More good ideas!

 

[contro]

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

Tzar Sasha wrote:
> Sorry got my wonders mixed up. it's actually The Statue of Zeus that
> gives the ancient calvary and I thought it was the temple of artemis
> that did the crusader, but guess I was wrong on that one. Whatever
> one does the crusader, I've got it in my current game...

LOL no worries! but is it the Knights Templar which gives the crusaders?
I'm sure it's that one.

>
> "Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D9B32C923E3kdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
>> "Tzar Sasha" <ZarSasha@localnet.com> wrote in
>> news:108vrsj7b20f636@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> AFAIK, the temple of Zeus produces ancient cavalry. The temple of
>> Artemis gives you temples in all of your cities.
>>
>> --
>> ICQ: 8105495
>> AIM: KeeperGFA
>> EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
>> "If we did the things we are capable of,
>> we would astound ourselves." - Edison

--
Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there

 

[contro]

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

Tzar Sasha wrote:
> In my current game i got the statue of zeus and the one that gives a
> crusader every 5 turns. So I decided to go to war. Bye-Bye Japan
> and the Zulu are almost gone and then the continent will be mine all
> mine hahahahha.....

LOL there is nothing more satisfying than getting rid of that last city to
get your continent! I really enjoy that moment! Especially since it's
usually preceded by the other civ begging for peace! LOL

> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c6phv6$d1c$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Tzar Sasha wrote:
>>> The temple of zeus and the temple of artemis both produce units.
>>> They are good if you want to go to war a lot. the unit cost adds up
>>> if you don't use them to loose a few or gain new cities to help pay
>>> for them.
>>
>> It was quite handy when that was happenng! I think it was the
>> temple of zeus which I had bullt. I was at war at the time, so
>> reinforcements kept coming, and dieing, so it wasn't costing too
>> much. In the end, I got a huge empire thanks to those ancient
>> cavalry.
>>
>>>
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote in message news:c6omsi$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?
>>
>> --
>> Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there

--
Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's there

 

[Guest]

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

> Oh, and is there any real difference between Monarchy and Republic? I'm
> always a bit unsure which to go for. I can't remember what the difference
> was now...sure it wasn't anything noticable

If I have 3 or more luxuries, I go straight to republic. If I've got less
than 3 luxuries, or are in a protracted war, I go to Monarchy.

GWB

 

[alex]

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

"Ambarish Sridharanarayanan" <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote in message news:c6up4n$5jv$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> In article <c6um5a$dpb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and is there any real difference between Monarchy and Republic? I'm
> > always a bit unsure which to go for. I can't remember what the difference
> > was now...sure it wasn't anything noticable
>
> In vanilla/PTW, the choice is clear. Unless you're playing AW, Monarchy
> is useless. The corruption in Monarchy is worse; in addition, Republic
> (alongwith Democracy) has bonus commerce (every worked square producing
> atleast one commerce produces one more). The downside of Republic is
> that it has War-weariness, and no MPs or free unit support. In practice,
> the WW is not as severe as in Democracy, and can easily be offset by
> using the Lux tax. Lack of MPs isn't a problem if you connect up and/or
> trade for Luxuries. I almost never use Monarchy unless, as above, I'm
> playing AW. Note that the Monarchy tech is still useful for building HG.
>
> Quite frankly, Republic was over-powered. Firaxis/Atari fixed it a
> little in C3C by increasing unit/support for Republic. But they didn't
> want to weaken Republic too much, so they added some free unit support.
> People still think Republic is a better alternative in C3C, but there's
> no consensus as yet. Disclaimer: I don't have C3C.

IMHO Republic vs. Monarchy deepens on difficulty level. I would recommend
Republic below Monarch, and Monarchy above Monarch. The difference is in
the number of citizens born content. Above Monarch you have only one
content citizen, it means that you need Temple, Coliseum, Cathedral and
Marketplace and four luxuries to operate size-12 city at full.
Three military police units can replace Cathedral, instead you can build
University and Bank. Later, of course, you can have Cathedral too,
and switch to democracy.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <U_1lc.58968$8Z1.46329@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, alex wrote:
>
> "Ambarish Sridharanarayanan" <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote in message news:c6up4n$5jv$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>> In article <c6um5a$dpb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh, and is there any real difference between Monarchy and Republic? I'm
>> > always a bit unsure which to go for. I can't remember what the difference
>> > was now...sure it wasn't anything noticable
>>
>> In vanilla/PTW, the choice is clear. Unless you're playing AW, Monarchy
>> is useless. The corruption in Monarchy is worse; in addition, Republic
>> (alongwith Democracy) has bonus commerce (every worked square producing
>> atleast one commerce produces one more). The downside of Republic is
>> that it has War-weariness, and no MPs or free unit support. In practice,
>> the WW is not as severe as in Democracy, and can easily be offset by
>> using the Lux tax. Lack of MPs isn't a problem if you connect up and/or
>> trade for Luxuries. I almost never use Monarchy unless, as above, I'm
>> playing AW. Note that the Monarchy tech is still useful for building HG.
>>
>> Quite frankly, Republic was over-powered. Firaxis/Atari fixed it a
>> little in C3C by increasing unit/support for Republic. But they didn't
>> want to weaken Republic too much, so they added some free unit support.
>> People still think Republic is a better alternative in C3C, but there's
>> no consensus as yet. Disclaimer: I don't have C3C.
>
> IMHO Republic vs. Monarchy deepens on difficulty level. I would recommend
> Republic below Monarch, and Monarchy above Monarch. The difference is in
> the number of citizens born content. Above Monarch you have only one
> content citizen, it means that you need Temple, Coliseum, Cathedral and
> Marketplace and four luxuries to operate size-12 city at full.
> Three military police units can replace Cathedral, instead you can build
> University and Bank. Later, of course, you can have Cathedral too,
> and switch to democracy.

I guess playing styles can differ a great deal - what I said above is of
course, just my experience as well as based on various comments at CFC
and RBC. Just to clarify, I never build Colosseums, and hardly ever
build Cathedrals in sub-12 cities (unless I'm religious). I keep my
people happy and working by using the lux tax. I've had to go as high as
60% on occasion, and 10-30% is standard. In my (limited) experience at
higher levels, the extra commerce from Republic makes such a high lux
tax very feasible; in most games, switching to Monarchy in such a
situation has actually brought down my income. Disclaimer: This is
relevant to vanilla/PTW. I've never played C3C.

--
Ambarish