Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

Contro <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote:
> 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?

In my games the cities are quite small still while switching to rebublic
so there is usually still tiles that are not mined and you can usually
irrigate these to generate the needed food production. But this of course
is dependent on your game situation but in my games 3-5 tiles of
irrigation is usually enough to support city to size 12 and there you will
be stuck anyhow before developing sanitation. And if possible you can keep
tiles free of mines in sequence so that you can irrigate those to connect
the irrigation effect to all you cities (since irrigation is only possible
while connected to river or allready irrigated tile).

Maybe it would be optimal to have about 2 irrigated tiles/city available
before swithing to different government. But this depends greatly how big
your cities are so the "optimal" is just a word .

-- tero

 

[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: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.

ahh, I see! Seems a lot more complicated than I thought it was! But well,
it all sounds fair enough. I thought floodplanes were a bad thing though?
Do they provide the benefits of irrgated land?

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> 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.

okay, thanks for that! Does the grassland cattle get increased to 4 once
out of despotism though? Or is it that it doesn't go beyond 3 for any
square?

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:08:01 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Invid Fan wrote:
>> 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.
>
>okay, thanks for that! Does the grassland cattle get increased to 4 once
>out of despotism though? Or is it that it doesn't go beyond 3 for any
>square?

The Despotism penalty results in no bonus at all if the square
produces 3 food after irrigation (which means that if it makes two
food before irrigation, don't bother irrigating).

It affect higher production too, but you still get some bonus so it
is worth doing. Once you're out of despotism, the penalty doesn't
apply.

Early on, mining tends to beat out irrigation in priority -- you
need shield production more than food. The only exception is if you
have a city with good food bonus squares or flood plains, because the
irrigation will let you turn out settlers faster (it still needs mined
squares to build them though, but NOT those high food output ones).


--
*-__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?)

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <c7agke$pma$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> In article <c780qq$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
>>
> The AI loves to irrigate everything, which you don't want early on.

LOL yes, I have seen that irrigating isn't a wise thing under despotism

>
>> 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?
>>
> 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. No need to improve more then that, and you
> want a good mix of food and shields. A square giving three food can
> let you use another that may only give one food but three shields. At
> a certain point you'll want your best cities to stop settler
> production and start to go for that first
> wonder/military/improvements. You should be getting near to having
> Republic/Monarchy so irrigate the lowlands and mine the hills. You
> can keep trees and jungle for now, unless you really need the space.
> Remember, you can only use so many squares at a time, so improving
> more then 12 is pointless till Sanitation. Open up the cities and
> place the population where they do the most good: wonder cities
> should have high shield production, even if it delays growth a bit.
> Once it can't grow anymore, there's no reason to be producing ANY
> extra food so re-arrange them again.

That all makes sense! Thanks!

>
> And yes, roads everywhere!
>

LOL this bit I can do!

> Once your core cities are set up, if you're tired of commanding the
> workers yourself you can automate them (shift-A, as I said) to improve
> the outer cites that don't produce much anyways. Always take control
> and bring some of them back to your core cities a few turns before you
> get railroads, though, as you'll want rails on your main cities as
> soon as possible (as well as a rail line to your borders).

Yes, that is a wise move. Thanks for all this! Definitely a good help!

 

[contro]

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

The Stare wrote:
> "Invid Fan" <invid@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:050520041337348782%invid@localnet.com...
>> In article <c7agke$pma$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>>> In article <c780qq$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
>>>
>> The AI loves to irrigate everything, which you don't want early on.
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>> 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.

Okay, thanks! I'll try it this way if it makes no difference. It would be
nice to keep towns with a higher population.

 

[contro]

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

Ambarish Sridharanarayanan wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I usually always build a granary. But didn't know it got emptied! I
just thought it improved food production...what does the emptying actually
do?

 

[Guest]

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

Contro <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote:
> Yes, I usually always build a granary. But didn't know it got emptied! I
> just thought it improved food production...what does the emptying actually
> do?

When you have granary the food storage of the city is halved instead of
emptying it all the way when building settler for example. I don't
remember the exact numbers but for example when city drops to size 1 it
needs 20 food to grow to size 2. If you have granary this only costs 10 so
if your city produces 2 extra food in one turn the size will increase to 2
in 10 turns without granary and in 5 turns when you have it. This will
affect in both directions so when you city grows size 1->2 the storage is
allready half full and not totally empty.

And this emptying is done with granary only when size is increased from
6->7 and from 12->13.

-- tero

 

[contro]

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

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <d6amc.3838$q_1.2727@news01.roc.ny>, The Stare
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> 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.
>>
> If there's no time difference, there's no savings. Besides, a size six
> city can be hard to keep happy early on when you're not hooked up to
> any luxuries. Size three is happy with just one deffender or a temple.
>
> Naturally, all this depends on playing style.

True true. If it works, it works!

Oh, and there is no echo. Just my sentence! LOL

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> 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

I'll try to keep this in mind, but I think it might be a little to complex
for me at the moment, as I'm a little unsure how food and shields work in
the grand scheme of things. But thank you though!

I know you weren't just talking to me by the way, but I just didn't want you
to think I was ignoring your advice.

 

[contro]

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

Alfredo Tutino wrote:
> 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

Yes, I was thinking this really. While one might not be best suited to you,
it would still be better than staying in despotism. From what I can see,
the problems with each can be dealt with without too much trouble. But
obviously if you can get the one you want, then it would always be better!

 

[contro]

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

Mike Garcia wrote:
> 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.

oh LOL

>
> 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.
>

ahhh, well I was thinking that once I've picked either monarchy or republic,
to not change until democracy, not to change between monarchy and republic.

But yes, I agree totally about getting that wonder built first! Nothing
more annoying than someone beating you to it!

 

[contro]

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

GWB wrote:
> "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.

There hasn't been much talk of feudalism. Or communism or fascism for that
matter. Is it possible that there are many tactics that people are unaware
of, as they are sticking to monarchy/republic/democracy rather than going
for the other ones? What advantages do you think feudalism has, and do you
go for democracy still?

 

[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: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.

But I thought conquest victory was owning 66.6% of the landmass?!

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>The Stare wrote:
>> "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote in message news: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.
>
>But I thought conquest victory was owning 66.6% of the landmass?!

Nope, that is domination (two thirds of landmass and population, you
have to have both -- though usually if you have the land you also have
the population).

With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic --
get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.

--
*-__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?)

Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> 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.

Very true! this is why I think a terrorism factor would be a great
addition! Such as democracies having a higher terrorism risk than facism,
and that your terrorism risk would increase on your breaking of policies,
invading countries (having towns that used to belong to other countries and
what not). Perhaps terrorism going on in cities far from the capital, as
they want independence....obviously there would have to be improvements that
would limit such things, such as wonders or other ones that don't exist.

>
> 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.

I didn't play civ2, but that does sound like a good idea! How did that
work?

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:06:42 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:


>ahh, I see! Seems a lot more complicated than I thought it was! But well,
>it all sounds fair enough. I thought floodplanes were a bad thing though?
>Do they provide the benefits of irrgated land?

At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
ethnocentrism.

I'm just guessing, but I imagine most if not all of the Civ design
team were comprised of white guys of European descent.

Essentially, the game has you start as a guy with a shovel, and from
there you build a civilization. If your shovel guy happens to start
near jungle, however, you run the risk of having your population's
growth impeded by diseases that your scientists believe are coming
from the jungle near the city... Why?

When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa, South
America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
illness.

Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis? Actually,
they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.

White guys bought the farm simply because their bodies had never
encountered these illnesses. Of course, us merry white guys were
hardly bothered at all by several kinds of cold and flu... When we
introduced these exotic bugs to the jungles, the natives suffered
massive losses.

So... It makes no sense that if you play a civ that starts in jungle,
you would be particularly susceptible to illness. On the other hand,
maybe illnesses should attack your population when you make contact
with a new civ.

-

T.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:31:38 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>Very true! this is why I think a terrorism factor would be a great
>addition! Such as democracies having a higher terrorism risk than facism,
>and that your terrorism risk would increase on your breaking of policies,
>invading countries (having towns that used to belong to other countries and
>what not). Perhaps terrorism going on in cities far from the capital, as
>they want independence....obviously there would have to be improvements that
>would limit such things, such as wonders or other ones that don't exist.

I don't think democracy has anything to do with it. Terrorists attack
fascists and communists too. It's just that when they do, we call them
"freedom fighters" or "the resistance". We characterize them as brave
soldiers fighting a just cause.

Humans aren't very good at understanding the motivations of people
from other cultures. That's why in America, we refer to everyone who
attacks an American in Iraq as a terrorist. We refuse to consider that
these terrorists might believe they are defending their homeland.***

***Generalizations used in my posts are not intended to represent the
views of all Americans, and in fact, might not even represent my own
views in some cases.

>> 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.
>
>I didn't play civ2, but that does sound like a good idea! How did that
>work?

As I recall, if enough cities were in a state of anarchy, they'd just
split off and assume the identity of a civ that wasn't already in the
game. I recall once I was wailing on Russia with a hellish fury, and
in fact, they deserved it... But suddenly, half the Russian cities
changed color and started calling themselves The Celts... And these
strange new Celtish people didn't seem nearly as disagreeable as the
Russians did.



-

T.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:03:53 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
<stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:

>At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
>really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
>in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
>ethnocentrism.
>
No, it's caused by jungles supporting disease.

>When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa, South
>America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
>illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
>illness.

No, malaria is not caused by jungles. But it happens mostly near
jungles.

>Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
>indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
>deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis?

Yes. And they still do. See
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/2003/03pr26malaria.htm

"Press Centre
Press Release
Malaria is alive and well and killing more than 3000 children every
day"

Actually,
>they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
>understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.

Show me a native medicine that stops ebola. I want to buy some.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c7fkqr$9i8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro" <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote:
<snip>
>There hasn't been much talk of feudalism. Or communism or fascism for that
>matter. Is it possible that there are many tactics that people are unaware
>of, as they are sticking to monarchy/republic/democracy rather than going
>for the other ones? What advantages do you think feudalism has, and do you
>go for democracy still?

Comparing the various governments is somewhat like comparing apples to
oranges. (So here goes. 🙂

Under C3C Communism is very powerful if you have a huge empire. You need to
start preparing early by building as many Courthouses as you can, especially
in your uncorrupt core. You also want to build your Forbidden Palace. Once
you have the Communism tech you need to start building Police Stations and
finish them in your core before you switch. You also need to get Espionage so
you can build SPHQ (Secret Police HQ -- acts like an additional Forbidden
Palace). You do all this to minimize corruption and waste.

Under Communism your empire won't produce as much gold as a Democracy but
then you don't need as much either. Basically most of your huge army is free
and you can't cash rush buildings. You can also substitute MP garrisons for a
luxury although this is not very powerful.

Once you switch governments you should find that your core with its
Courthouses and Police Stations is somewhat less productive but your far flung
cities are way more productive. This increase in productivity allows faster
Courthouse/Police Station construction which will further increase
productivity. You will also want to build the SPHQ as quick as you can to
give your entire empire a productivity boost.

During a war you can depopulate newly conquered cities by pop rushing
cultural buildings like Temples and Libraries. This will vastly reduce the
chances of the city flipping but the city will be unhappy for a long time.


I have never used Feudalism but I do have some vague thoughts.

First off Feudalism is the _only_ government you _must_ research. If you are
trying to get though the tech tree as fast as possible it may be your only
alternative to Despotism.

The obvious strength of Feudalism is the vast army that it can support with
minimum population. It actually has more free support from Towns than from
Metros. This suggests that you want many small cities rather than a few large
ones. ICS anyone?

ICS is an old Civ 2 strategy of building your cities just as close together as
you can. In Civ 3 this would mean each city gets an average of 4 tiles.
There is a potentially workable variant of this where you first build huge
numbers of cities and then abandon 3/4 of them as time goes by. First about
half are disbanded so half the survivors can grow to size 12. Once you get
Sanitation you can abandon more cities so the rest can work 16 tiles each.

Corruption and waste would be so bad that you would never actually build
anything. You deal with the corruption problem by pop rushing military units.
Your empire grows on the bones of the dead.

If you go this route then the Pyramids and Sun Tzu's are almost vital. The
Temple of Artemis would be way cool. The Great Wall would be very nice. This
would probably work best with an Agricultural tribe -- Aztecs or Celts would
be my choices.


Mike G

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c7fk6i$dda$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Contro wrote:
> Ambarish Sridharanarayanan wrote:
>> In article <d6amc.3838$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.
>
> Yes, I usually always build a granary. But didn't know it got emptied! I
> just thought it improved food production...what does the emptying actually
> do?

You should (almost) *always* build a granary in your settler factory. On
a standard map, try to get two cities with granaries.

The way a granary works is: Normally, your city grows when your food box
becomes full; after a city grows, the food box is emptied, unless you
have a granary, in which case it's only half-emptied. When a town
becomes a city or when a city becomes a metropolis, lots of things
happen, including the following:

1. The food box is emptied even if there's a granary
2. The size of the food box doubles (from 10 to 20 and then to 40),
making growth that much slower.

One strategy to combat this is, during the times prior to Construction
(Aqueducts) and Sanitation (Hospitals), when your cities are wasting
food, build lots of workers, and as soon as the 'duct or Hospital is
done, merge them all into the city, instantly zooming the city in size.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <c7gljn$bqd$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Ambarish Sridharanarayanan wrote:
> When a town becomes a city or when a city becomes a metropolis, lots
> of things happen, including the following:
>
> 2. The size of the food box doubles (from 10 to 20 and then to 40),
> making growth that much slower.

Oops. Make it 20 to 40 and 40 to 60.

 

[Guest]

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

"Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister" <stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote in
message news:u7qm90t1ljvp4s2h0muls9kthb2k8kmpjp@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:06:42 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>
> >ahh, I see! Seems a lot more complicated than I thought it was! But
well,
> >it all sounds fair enough. I thought floodplanes were a bad thing
though?
> >Do they provide the benefits of irrgated land?
>
> At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
> really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
> in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
> ethnocentrism.
>
> I'm just guessing, but I imagine most if not all of the Civ design
> team were comprised of white guys of European descent.
>
> Essentially, the game has you start as a guy with a shovel, and from
> there you build a civilization. If your shovel guy happens to start
> near jungle, however, you run the risk of having your population's
> growth impeded by diseases that your scientists believe are coming
> from the jungle near the city... Why?
>
> When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa, South
> America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
> illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
> illness.
>
> Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
> indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
> deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis? Actually,
> they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
> understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.
>
> White guys bought the farm simply because their bodies had never
> encountered these illnesses. Of course, us merry white guys were
> hardly bothered at all by several kinds of cold and flu... When we
> introduced these exotic bugs to the jungles, the natives suffered
> massive losses.
>
> So... It makes no sense that if you play a civ that starts in jungle,
> you would be particularly susceptible to illness. On the other hand,
> maybe illnesses should attack your population when you make contact
> with a new civ.
>
> -
>
> T.

Twin Sister, you speaking the truth! Couldn't have said it better.

GWB

 

[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:c7fkqr$9i8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > 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.
>
> There hasn't been much talk of feudalism. Or communism or fascism for
that
> matter. Is it possible that there are many tactics that people are
unaware
> of, as they are sticking to monarchy/republic/democracy rather than going
> for the other ones? What advantages do you think feudalism has, and do
you
> go for democracy still?

Feudalism is a good civ for war early/mid-game for the following reasons:
Support costs are low for a big army for a civ with relatively small cities.
You can have up to 3 units in a city for happiness. You rush build with
people, not gold (this helps keep your cities small which keeps your support
costs low). War weariness is low. (The fact it isn't zero is a little bit
of a problem). Corruptions isn't quite as bad as in despotism.

You always have to go for democracy though, unless you plan to stay in
Republic the whole game.

GWB

 

[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:
>> 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?
>
> In my games the cities are quite small still while switching to
> rebublic
> so there is usually still tiles that are not mined and you can usually
> irrigate these to generate the needed food production. But this of
> course
> is dependent on your game situation but in my games 3-5 tiles of
> irrigation is usually enough to support city to size 12 and there you
> will
> be stuck anyhow before developing sanitation. And if possible you can
> keep
> tiles free of mines in sequence so that you can irrigate those to
> connect
> the irrigation effect to all you cities (since irrigation is only
> possible
> while connected to river or allready irrigated tile).
>
> Maybe it would be optimal to have about 2 irrigated tiles/city
> available
> before swithing to different government. But this depends greatly how
> big
> your cities are so the "optimal" is just a word .
>
> -- tero

I know what you mean, as my cities would still be very much in development
when I switch to a new government type. or seem to be so far! I'd just
have to see how I can get by with the workers. Do you normally make a
worker per city you build?