Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

> 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.
>
Beware of running into submarines. If you have spy, keep checking if
the opposition has them. No subs, no/(fewer) worries. Otherwise send
an escort. Move multiple button will stop flotilla when first craft has
run out of moves. Proverb of eggs in baskets comes to mind. The more
travellers in the transport the better it should be protected. Depends
how much of a risk taker you are!

 

[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:c6um8n$h2d$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 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!
>
Use the rename function. Transport A, Transport B etc. This way you
can be sure of which transport has moves available.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:49:25 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"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.

I think that much of this depends on playing style and map size. On
bigger maps, I find it easy to reach future tech, and even on the
standard it isn't too hard. At levels below regent this gets harder,
as the AI does even less research.

>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.

Yeah, if you want to avoid the other victory conditions. The two
killers for me -- Diplomatic and Space Race. Either the AI gets there
first, or you must do whatever it takes to get to that point yourself
and win (or with the UN, decline to hold the vote). The Space Race
requires you to go to war in order to stop the AI from winning, unless
you build the ship yourself.

Either one is a good way to ensure that the end of the tech tree is
never reached. But also, either one makes sure that the game is
likely to end earlier.

Domination and Cultural are harder to pull off early, and both are
tightly related to how much of the map you own. Either one pretty
much trumps conquest -- you have to raze cities in order to have any
hope of not getting either of these if you take on the world.

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

 

[contro]

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

Ambarish Sridharanarayanan wrote:
> 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.

Ahh, I see. So monarchy isn't really a good idea then? I used to change to
monarchy as my first government change, having aimed to learn the techs
bofore it. But I was always unsure really if I should do that, or go for
republic.

recently though, I've changed my game plan, so I don't really go for
monarchy like I used to, and instead concentrate on getting the Great
Library, and then taking it from there. So I think Republic it is!

 

[contro]

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

Tzar Sasha wrote:
> 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.

ahh, I see. But like Ambarish said, you can get round that by paying a bit
more with your people happinessometre. But yes, I think it seems that there
are more advantages to going with demoncracy than monarchy. Although in my
first load of games, it didn't seem to hinder me when going for monarchy.
but that was on easy difficulty!

>
> "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?)

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.

really?! hmm, well I always went with monarchy on the easiest two
difficulty levels, but then I think it's a lot easier to get away with not
playing it completely right earlier on.

The thing is, because earlier on it's easier to go to war (as you don't have
democracy) I guess that is the advantage of monarchy, as then you can go to
war a lot easier. But with Republic, things are made a little harder with
the war weariness. I guess it just depends on if you don't mind funding
your war a little more than you would with Monarchy,

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c6um5a$dpb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>
>>> It'll depend on level, world size, etc, but in regular Civ3 on
>>> Regent I can usually get to Computers by the late 1700's. In my
>>> current game it's 1545 and I'm two turns from getting tanks. The
>>> others are a bit behind, but they'll all catch up most likely once
>>> I get to the next age. Then again, only Russia has a large intact
>>> nation at the moment.
>>>
>>> The secret, at least for me, is to set science to zero at the
>>> beginning and buy everything, researching Literature to build the
>>> Great Library and then Republic so I can switch to it as soon as
>>> possible. Get a golden age about the time the GL expires, build all
>>> the science and happiness wonders you can get and burst ahead of
>>> everyone. If you plan properly and stay ahead of the pack, you can
>>> get just about every wonder you want from Bach's Cathederal on. (If
>>> they don't know Astronomy, they can't switch to Copernicus's
>>> Observatory when you beat them to something else). If you want
>>> research to move more quickly trade techs, but guard the important
>>> wonder techs.
>>
>> Sounds like you don't do half bad either! I'll have to try your
>> idea, but I'm not sure I'd have enough money to carry it out. LOL
>> but I'll see! yet another thing I'll have to have a dabble at!
>> there are just so many! But that's why the game is so good!
>>
> Setting science to zero will get you tons of money, assuming you do a
> halfway decent job of building roads and such. I usually play as
> Egypt, so the Industrial aspect lets my workers build twice as fast.
> Roads in two turns is damned nice

That does sound handy! Well at the moment, I just let the workers decide
what to do really. It is a problem though, as they don't link up with other
civs via roads until a lot later on. So I think I'd probably have to start
taking over a bit and doing it right.

>
> Building a Forbidden Palace as soon as possible also helps, usually
> doubling your income.
>

At the moment I suffer from being quite far behind during the earlier years,
so it's hard to get the wonders done before others. But I'm going to work
on this using the hints I've got off of here, and just by learning

>> 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
>>
> More trade (thus more money and/or research), less corruption. Never
> use anything other then Republic and Democracy, actually. Long wars
> can be a bitch, but that's part of the fun and makes luxuries all the
> more important.

LOL true, if you can get it right, it doesn't matter about people being
less happy. Just doing it that is the trick!

 

[contro]

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

GWB 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
>
> 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

Sounds like good reasons to me! Thanks!

 

[contro]

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

Caesar wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c6um8n$h2d$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> 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!
>>
> Use the rename function. Transport A, Transport B etc. This way you
> can be sure of which transport has moves available.

Yes, it could become a little confusing otherwise! Thanks once more!

 

[contro]

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

Caesar wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Beware of running into submarines. If you have spy, keep checking if
> the opposition has them. No subs, no/(fewer) worries. Otherwise send
> an escort. Move multiple button will stop flotilla when first craft
> has run out of moves. Proverb of eggs in baskets comes to mind. The
> more travellers in the transport the better it should be protected.
> Depends how much of a risk taker you are!

LOL I know, tell me about it! it would be so annoying if you lost lots of
troops due to the sinking of a transport!

 

[Guest]

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

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
om> wrote in news:c780bi$rd2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:

[snip]
>
> Ahh, I see. So monarchy isn't really a good idea then? I used to
> change to monarchy as my first government change, having aimed to
> learn the techs bofore it. But I was always unsure really if I
> should do that, or go for republic.

I think Monarchy is (usually) an important step. I always go for
Monarchy over Republic because of the free unit support, the military
police, and the lack of war weariness. During the reign of Monarchy, I
go to war. Then, before switching to Democracy, I build/buy the
necessary happiness improvements and do a massive disband of my police
units.
Once Democracy is available, I never leave it.

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

 

[contro]

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

Kevin 'Keeper' Foster wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
> om> wrote in news:c780bi$rd2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Ahh, I see. So monarchy isn't really a good idea then? I used to
>> change to monarchy as my first government change, having aimed to
>> learn the techs bofore it. But I was always unsure really if I
>> should do that, or go for republic.
>
> I think Monarchy is (usually) an important step. I always go for
> Monarchy over Republic because of the free unit support, the military
> police, and the lack of war weariness. During the reign of Monarchy,
> I go to war. Then, before switching to Democracy, I build/buy the
> necessary happiness improvements and do a massive disband of my police
> units.
> Once Democracy is available, I never leave it.

Yes, I do agree with the democracy part. I did try facism, but it seemed to
put me back by a long way really. I think! But well, as for Monarchy, it
seems to be a balancing act between keeping it right for you, rather than
going for republic. I never noticed much difference I played it, without
really knowing the difference between them both. I think it's mainly just a
case of getting one or the other to change from despotism or whatever the
first one is.

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c780qq$rlv$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>
>>> Setting science to zero will get you tons of money, assuming you do
>>> a halfway decent job of building roads and such. I usually play as
>>> Egypt, so the Industrial aspect lets my workers build twice as fast.
>>> Roads in two turns is damned nice
>>
>> That does sound handy! Well at the moment, I just let the workers
>> decide what to do really. It is a problem though, as they don't
>> link up with other civs via roads until a lot later on. So I think
>> I'd probably have to start taking over a bit and doing it right.
>>
> Oh, god yes!

LOL

I'll automate workers late in the game (using 'shift-a'
> so they don't change any improvements I've made), but early on you
> HAVE to do it yourself. It's not only building roads, but deciding
> what to irrigate and mine. Having your core cities set up early can
> give you a huge boost with regard to wonders. Mine those mountains!
>

LOL yes, I was thinking this really! So basically you should mine the
mountains, cut down the trees and jungle, and irrigate the flat land (if you
can)? As well as putting roads all over it?

>>>
>>> Building a Forbidden Palace as soon as possible also helps, usually
>>> doubling your income.
>>>
>>
>> At the moment I suffer from being quite far behind during the
>> earlier years, so it's hard to get the wonders done before others.
>> But I'm going to work on this using the hints I've got off of here,
>> and just by learning
>>
> The Forbidden Palace is a minor wonder, so every civ can build one.
> Pick a good city three or four cities away from your capital that
> would make a good second core, and start as soon as you have a temple
> built in it. Mine around it so that even with corruption you can
> build it somewhat quickly (It's so nice to see completion time drop
> from 100 turns to 50 as that new citizen give you enough shields to
> double your produciton, from one shield after corruption to two
> shields ^_^)

yes, I sure love it when the production times drop down! I hate it whey
they are so slow sometimes. Horrible!

but ahh, yes, I had forgotten that the forbidden palace was available to
all. Makes sense as I do always build it.

>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> More trade (thus more money and/or research), less corruption. Never
>>> use anything other then Republic and Democracy, actually. Long wars
>>> can be a bitch, but that's part of the fun and makes luxuries all
>>> the more important.
>>
>> LOL true, if you can get it right, it doesn't matter about people
>> being less happy. Just doing it that is the trick!
>>
> For Republic you need three luxuries under your control, four
> preferably. You'll want to go to war for more later, as a good sized
> democracy will need access to ALL of them

I think that is why a lot of people go for republic, as they usually try to
get the luxuries regardless, so they have them for democracy.

 

[Guest]

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

Contro <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote:
> LOL yes, I was thinking this really! So basically you should mine the
> mountains, cut down the trees and jungle, and irrigate the flat land (if you
> can)? As well as putting roads all over it?

Basically yes, but really no. At the beginning you should build mines in
flat land also because irrigation usually doesn't give any extra food
while playing with despotism early on. This changes with monarchy and
rebublic but the need for shields is greater at the beginning than food
. Oh and put road on every square that your cities use and remember to
connect you cities with roads because without them you don't get benefits
from those luxuries (and you can move your few troops fast when needed).

-- tero

 

[contro]

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

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:49:25 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> I think that much of this depends on playing style and map size. On
> bigger maps, I find it easy to reach future tech, and even on the
> standard it isn't too hard. At levels below regent this gets harder,
> as the AI does even less research.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yeah, if you want to avoid the other victory conditions. The two
> killers for me -- Diplomatic and Space Race. Either the AI gets there
> first, or you must do whatever it takes to get to that point yourself
> and win (or with the UN, decline to hold the vote). The Space Race
> requires you to go to war in order to stop the AI from winning, unless
> you build the ship yourself.
>
> Either one is a good way to ensure that the end of the tech tree is
> never reached. But also, either one makes sure that the game is
> likely to end earlier.
>
> Domination and Cultural are harder to pull off early, and both are
> tightly related to how much of the map you own. Either one pretty
> much trumps conquest -- you have to raze cities in order to have any
> hope of not getting either of these if you take on the world.

If you turn off all the victory condtions, can you only win by taking over
the world?

 

[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:c7agke$pma$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> LOL yes, I was thinking this really! So basically you should mine the
> mountains, cut down the trees and jungle, and irrigate the flat land (if
you
> can)? As well as putting roads all over it?

You get no benefit from irigating grassland during despotism unless it has
cattle/wheat/game on it. Those should be irrigated early. Likewise, if a
bonus resource adds 1 food to a plains tile, you get no benefit from
irrigating it and it should be mined. As a rule, i mine all grassland,
irrigate all plains/floodplain. Once out of despotism, you can mine the
hills/mountains and then irrigate just enough so that the city will use
them.

After RRs, your plains cities will have an enormous amount of food and some
tiles should be mined. Likewise, cities near alot of floodplains can have
every tile that is not a floodplain mined.

Shield production is the key to to civ. You want your cities growing but not
at the expense of shields. After hospitals and RRs, i bring up the domestic
advisor and sort by excess food. Those cities w/ more than 5-6 extra get
extra mining around them.

Once you are in the modern era, you know you are going to win, and
production is no longer an issue, you can start irrigating *everything*
around select cities such that your score will increase because of the extra
entertainers.

 

[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:c7agn0$pof$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> If you turn off all the victory condtions, can you only win by taking over
> the world?

That is called a conquest victory and is one of the ones you would have
turned off.

 

[Guest]

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

"Invid Fan" <invid@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:050520041317085194%invid@localnet.com...
> In article <8u7mc.3826$CR2.1882@news01.roc.ny>, The Stare
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c7agke$pma$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > LOL yes, I was thinking this really! So basically you should mine
the
> > > mountains, cut down the trees and jungle, and irrigate the flat land
(if
> > you
> > > can)? As well as putting roads all over it?
> >
> > You get no benefit from irigating grassland during despotism unless it
has
> > cattle/wheat/game on it. Those should be irrigated early. Likewise, if a
> > bonus resource adds 1 food to a plains tile, you get no benefit from
> > irrigating it and it should be mined.
>
> Don't think that's quite right. Cattle on a grasslands (green tile)
> gives me three food, and can't be improved via irrigation in despotism.
> Best to mine. Cattle on plains (tan) gives two food, and can be
> irrigated to three.

Cattle has a bonus of +2 food , +1 shield.
Base total on grassland = 4 food/1 shield, despotism = 3 food/1 shield so
you can either irrigate or mine it for a +1 effect.

Base on plains = 3 food/2 shields, despotism = 2 food/2 shields so the only
thing you can do for a +1 effect on plains is irrigate.

It's only when the unmodified total = 3 that you get no benefit.

Same for mining hills or mountains under despotism. You do all that work for
only a +1 effect that you could get on flatland in 1/2 or 1/3 the time.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <d6amc.3838$q_1.2727@news01.roc.ny>, The Stare wrote:
>
> "Invid Fan" <invid@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:050520041337348782%invid@localnet.com...
>> Well, it's more complicated then that. You have to look at the site,
>> and see how your city will grow. Early on when you're pumping out
>> settlers, you want cities to quickly grow to a population of three then
>> complete a settler.
>
> You're better off having a city bounce between 4 and 6 pumping out settlers.
> It can build them faster and recover quicker than a 1 - 3 town. A couple of
> these and you can crank them out just as fast as having all your towns
> dropping to size 1 all the time.

Also, never let your city grow past 6, as the granary (I assume you have
one in your settler factory) is emptied when the city grows from 6 to 7
(as from 12 to 13). 4-6, 3-5 etc. are good growth cycles. As The Stare
points out, 1-3 is probably a little two slow.

--
Ambarish

 

[Guest]

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

Contro
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message c780s0$rdb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> GWB 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
> >
> > 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
>
> Sounds like good reasons to me! Thanks!

Anyway, IMHO, any governemnt is better than despotism, in almost all
circumstances. Get the one you can reach faster, given the other needs that
you're addressing by the tech development route you have chosen, and change
government asap; there will be time to improve it later!

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c7bj3q$jnh$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Ambarish Sridharanarayanan <srdhrnry@UIUC.invalid.EDU> wrote:
>
>Also, never let your city grow past 6, as the granary (I assume you have
>one in your settler factory) is emptied when the city grows from 6 to 7
>(as from 12 to 13). 4-6, 3-5 etc. are good growth cycles. As The Stare
>points out, 1-3 is probably a little two slow.

It depends. You need 30 shields and 2 population to make a Settler. The
larger the city the faster it can crank out the 30 shields. Usually the
limiting factor is the number of extra food the city produces, but not always.

Assuming the city has a granary, your settler pump needs to produce 30 shields
in the same amount of time that it takes to accumulate ~20 extra food. Since
food is not subject to corruption (actually waste) the shields are normally
the limiting factor. The lower a city's corruption the smaller it can be and
still crank out settlers without delay.

If you have an Agricultural civ you may be producing 3 extra food a turn.
Your city may need to be quite large to produce 30 shields in 7 turns.

What you absolutely don't want is that the 30 shields are done but the city
has not grown to size 3 yet.


Mike G





>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <xQdmc.39878$Qc.1564355@twister1.libero.it>, "Alfredo Tutino" <ducciotutino@libero.it> wrote:
>
>Anyway, IMHO, any governemnt is better than despotism, in almost all
>circumstances. Get the one you can reach faster, given the other needs that
>you're addressing by the tech development route you have chosen, and change
>government asap; there will be time to improve it later!

Ahh... no.

Non-religious civs lose valuable production during government switches. You
really can't afford to switch too many times. I wait until I have the early
government I need (either peaceful Republic of war mongering Monarchy) until I
make the first switch. I'll also wait until after I get that critical wonder
i'm building if the government switch will slow me down.


Mike G

 

[Guest]

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

"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in message
news:xQdmc.39878$Qc.1564355@twister1.libero.it...
>
> Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message c780s0$rdb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > GWB 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
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > Sounds like good reasons to me! Thanks!
>
> Anyway, IMHO, any governemnt is better than despotism, in almost all
> circumstances. Get the one you can reach faster, given the other needs
that
> you're addressing by the tech development route you have chosen, and
change
> government asap; there will be time to improve it later!
>
> Alfredo

I think if you are in an early protracted war, it's best to stay in
despotism. I'm in a Regent huge map game with 16 civs and the AI
aggressiveness turned up all the way, and I stayed in despotism fighting off
the Japanese until I switched to Feudalism. Feudalism is a good govt for
fighting a long war also.

GWB

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:25:43 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>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!

Without adding to any arguments, you aren't gonna see the end of
terrorism anyway. Not that I endorse raizing any cities to the
ground... but terrorism is a part of the human condition, it always
has been, and it always will be. It's the natural by product of
oppression, real or perceived.

More importantly, The next Civ should include a more complex terrorism
model and the potential (ala Civ 2) for nations to split into distinct
factions when conditions get bad enough.

-

T.

 

[contro]

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

Tero Könnölä wrote:
> Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>> LOL yes, I was thinking this really! So basically you should mine
>> the mountains, cut down the trees and jungle, and irrigate the flat
>> land (if you can)? As well as putting roads all over it?
>
> Basically yes, but really no. At the beginning you should build mines
> in
> flat land also because irrigation usually doesn't give any extra food
> while playing with despotism early on. This changes with monarchy and
> rebublic but the need for shields is greater at the beginning than
> food . Oh and put road on every square that your cities use and
> remember to
> connect you cities with roads because without them you don't get
> benefits
> from those luxuries (and you can move your few troops fast when
> needed).
>
> -- tero

ahh, I see! Thanks! would it not be an idea to irrigate the land in
preparation for monarchy or what not, or is it still okay to only start to
do it once you reach that government?