Difficulty Levels

[Guest]

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

Guys, maybe we could move the politics to another group? I have a huge
interest in current events and believe our lives depend on an accurate
understanding of same, but I come to a.g.c3 in part as a respite from
those serious things.
Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:30:11 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
> <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:19:37 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
>><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 07:21:10 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
<stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:30:11 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
><jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:19:37 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
>><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Terrorism is principally an attack on public opinion, and that
>>matters more to democracies than autocracies. Insurgency, OTOH, can
>>be directed more at the material resources of the enemy, and be
>>effective even if *no* casualties occur -- terrorists want to kill
>>people, especially relatively innocent people, as part of the goal of
>>causing terror.
>
>And a fair point of distinction is made... Still, history does show us
>examples where the line is blurry...

It is blurry, people cross the line between one style of operation
to another easily, and may slide between groups (especially in an
insurgency/terrorist situation, where your own group may be weakened
forcing you to continue with another).

For that matter, open warfare itself can slip to other styles of
fighting, including using terror as a factor. Violence is almost
never a clear cut matter of warriors engaging warriors honorably.

>As for innocence... I think 9/11 victims were innocent, and you think
>they were innocent, and I'm confident that we are right... But that
>doesn't change the fact that their killers, for whatever reasons, did
>not view them or any of us as innocent.
>
>Were they a force that actually could wage a legitimate war, and were
>they to engage the US and win ((perhaps a hundred trillion to one
>shot, maybe, if the planets aligned, and we had severely bad luck))
>then history would treat them as heroes, and us as guilty villains.
>
>And it bears pointing out that while its true that terrorisms goal is
>to kill innocent people, it should be noted that these aren't
>bloodthirsty lunatics. I see their tactics as being as far from
>honorable as can be, but it isn't random mayhem they seek. They are
>waging a kind of war and they have very clear goals and they are not
>misjudging our resolve. They simply believe they can evade and endure
>long enough to change our resolve.
>
>Though, I wouldn't be willing to bet they are right.

No, but because some of their goals mesh with what other people,
unwilling to use their methods, share, they can take a very long view
of war as a matter of changing attitudes rather than securing a
military victory.

It isn't logical, and often it seems like the short term actions
have results very much at odds with their long term goals.

>>>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.***
>>
>> Not everyone does that, including the military leaders over there.
>>
>> There are three major groups, with different goals.
>
>I snipped for brevity... Of course you are right. And I spoke
>generally. My observation is that careful journalists, thoughtful
>military spokesmen, observant citizens who speak up, etc... do make
>the distinctions.
>
>But the Bush Administration does not. The White House is engaged in a
>campaign of propaganda designed to paint the situation in the most
>simplistic terms, and the lazier and not so bright among us are
>willing to follow along.

Yes -- it comes down to the black or white logic -- you are with us
or you are the enemy. It is easier to push for simplistic rhetoric
than clear details, or even muddy details which are more accurate.

>White House talking points are happy to ignore over a half century of
>complex history and our own complicity in much of it. They are happy
>to allow many citizens see it is a case of "Muslims are bad and want
>to kill us because they hate freedom" (Whatever the hell that means).
>They are happy to characterize dissident voices as anti-American and
>traitorous.
>
>They need to, because if too many of us pay attention, the glaring
>failures of this administration will become all too obvious.

Given enough time, that may happen -- but it could get a lot worse
before that, and it isn't all that good right now and Bush still has
plenty of support.


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

 

[Guest]

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

< cut >

> >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.
>
> Civ2 had two requirements for this.
>
> #1 -- the capital city must be taken by an enemy.
> #2 -- the civ must be larger than the player's civ in population.
>
> Anarchy wouldn't cause the split.

< cut >

IIRC, you're right about anarchy having nothing to do with the split - there
was another condition, however: there had to be less than 8 civ left on the
map - that was because in Civ 2 there weren't but 8 possible colours and
civs.
Of course that would not be a factor in Civ 3.

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister <stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote in
message 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.

Well, this is not absolutely exact. In a lot of warm places rich in water,
and thus in marshes, the development of agriculture was strongly slowed by
malaria. Most of sub-sharian Africa is a case in point. Several genetic
diseases of the blood (microcitemia and sickle-cell anemia, for instances)
are specific adaptation to malaria, that however entail an high level of
early deaths. They are a case of what the geneticist calls "balanced
polymorphism": a situation where etherozygothes (i.e. tose having a "normal"
allele and a "mutant" one) are more resistant to malaria than "normal
types", but most recessive homozygothes (both alleles "mutant") die very
young. In this conditions, the "mutant" allele reaches the diffusion level
that gives the best equilibrium - that still entails some loss to the
population, relative to the situations where no malaria and no genetic
adaptation happened. All this is due to the fact that agriculture -and thus
permanently living in moist places - is a very recent development in the
history of our species, and genetic adaptation has not had enough time to
optimize the situation.

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

< cut >

> But as you say, jungles do most likely harbour a lot of diseases in one
form
> or another, since they do contain more animals to do so. However, it
seems
> to be creatures that live in cities which spread disease amongst people,
> such as rats, not baboons or what not.

which means that the deadlier the bugs around, the more difficult it is to
have an urban civilization. And that is what the bouts of plague in Civ 3
try (a bit clumsily, IMHO) to model.

Alfredo

 

[Guest]

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

Contro
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message c7idth$tj8$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Yes, it is a good point really! I think you are right, and it is because
of
> their cultural background that jungles do cause disease. Perhaps it's
just
> that it could be possible that there are certain diseases in there that
> every so often would come out and be spread my rats or what not. I still
> don't know to what extent the local people in places such as the Amazon
> would be susceptible to this though!
>
> I think it's basically just because of the fact that there could be a lot
of
> wildlife causing the diseases. But to what realistic extent this would
> happen really I'm not so sure! It would be a good idea, like you say, to
> have a civ that starts in jungled areas to be immune to such things, but
> it's how this would be controlled (would cities that were built near
jungle
> get the same thing).
>
> While jungle and the like do have the badness of providing less beneficial
> land, it does seem that it isn't important to make them give disease as
> well. But I guess it's just another way to try to make you get rid of
them
> quicker, as in most "advanced" civs, jungles and the like were removed
from
> places near cities. But again, that could be a white mans culture talking
> again! LOL
>
> I think the game could never be ultra realistic, and if it was, it might
> suffer as a result, so I think the jungle and the like was just one way of
> being able to get cities to suffer from disease outbreaks, and for the
> player to be able to do something about it, rather than it just being a
> random thing that happened because of the time period
>

In fact, I think it is difficult to point out a factor that has had a bigger
impact on human civilizations than epidemic disease - but I do not think
than having random Black Death or some such thing would make for a very
amusing addition to the game...

Alfredo

 

[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:c7id03$ep1$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> 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?
>
> At least one worker per city. It depends though, if you can get
> your hands on a lot of slave workers then you won't need as many of
> your own.

That's normally how I do it, I have to admit. Glad I was doing something
the right way! LOL

 

[contro]

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

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:54:00 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>
>> LOL you do have some good points! But it does work both ways. To
>> start with, malaria is caused by heat.
>
> No, it's caused by infection, carried by mosquitoes. They need heat
> and water to breed. We have trillions of mosquitoes here in Minnesota,
> but no malaria.
>
> I believe the word comes from "bad air", which used to be thought the
> cause of the disease. Jungles smell bad, but more importantly they
> have heat, and water, and breeding grounds for insects. The infection
> lives as do the carriers. Mosquitoes alone--no malaria.

Well if you read what I put after that part, you'd see that I said it came
from mosquitoes. But we don't get Malaria in England as it's not hot
enough. If it was hot enough, we'd get malaria.

>
> As for ebola, that might be the
>> same also.
>
> I'm not an expert but I believe ebola is thought to have migrated from
> other primate species and harbors in caves and other dark places where
> primates are native.

We have caves in England!

>
> You forget that smallpox and tuberculosis used to kill a huge
>> amount of people (as did the black plague) in Europe,
>
> Smallpox is an excellent counter-example to the original point. It was
> highly prevalent in Europe for centuries, but no widespread immunity
> existed in the general population. Immunity was only gained by
> surviving an attack.
>

cowpox was the immunity for smallpox. That's where vacination gets it's
name from (vacca meaning cow in latin, so I hear!).

I forgot to mention cholera too. That was a big killer in Europe in just
the last century also.

 

[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 c7idth$tj8$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is a good point really! I think you are right, and it is
>> because of their cultural background that jungles do cause disease.
>> Perhaps it's just that it could be possible that there are certain
>> diseases in there that every so often would come out and be spread
>> my rats or what not. I still don't know to what extent the local
>> people in places such as the Amazon would be susceptible to this
>> though!
>>
>> I think it's basically just because of the fact that there could be
>> a lot of wildlife causing the diseases. But to what realistic
>> extent this would happen really I'm not so sure! It would be a good
>> idea, like you say, to have a civ that starts in jungled areas to be
>> immune to such things, but it's how this would be controlled (would
>> cities that were built near jungle get the same thing).
>>
>> While jungle and the like do have the badness of providing less
>> beneficial land, it does seem that it isn't important to make them
>> give disease as well. But I guess it's just another way to try to
>> make you get rid of them quicker, as in most "advanced" civs,
>> jungles and the like were removed from places near cities. But
>> again, that could be a white mans culture talking again! LOL
>>
>> I think the game could never be ultra realistic, and if it was, it
>> might suffer as a result, so I think the jungle and the like was
>> just one way of being able to get cities to suffer from disease
>> outbreaks, and for the player to be able to do something about it,
>> rather than it just being a random thing that happened because of
>> the time period
>>
>
> In fact, I think it is difficult to point out a factor that has had a
> bigger impact on human civilizations than epidemic disease - but I do
> not think than having random Black Death or some such thing would
> make for a very amusing addition to the game...

LOL true. Well, I think they have tried to put disease in there, but just
tried to find a way of controlling it, so you could do sometihng about it,
other than putting in sanitation or whatever. So it would still happen
regardless of sanitation.

I think it could be done a more realistic way, but I don't think it's done
badly at the moment. Perhaps, like you say, random diseases, and more than
just getting rid of jungle to get rid of them. But I'm not too sure, it's
not really done badly at the moment really. It works anyway.

 

[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:c7if59$hu6$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Mike Garcia wrote:
>>> 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. 🙂
>>
>> LOL
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> it does sound quite interesting! but what are it's bad points
>> though? Are they that it isn't democracy? I guess it would be good
>> to have a huge army for free! How is it that your outer cities are
>> more productive than the inner ones though?
>
> Corruption in communisn is 'communal'. The empire wide base
> corruption is spread evenly between your cities. Courthouses and
> police stations reduce it in cities they are in. Thus your core
> cities have as much corruption as the previous 1 shield wonders under
> a different form. However, the far flung cities now have much less
> corruption than they would under any other form of gov't.

ahhh, I see. Thanks!

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> oh no! Why is that?
>
> For each pop rush, 1 citizen is made unhappy for 20 turns. If you pop
> 2 citizens and are only left with one, that one will be unhappy for
> 40 turns. Pop rushing alot of citizens can make for a very unhappy
> city for a very long time.

Oh right! I was always a bit unsure about doing that.....but well, I guess
one person isn't a lot. 20 or 40 turns is quite a length of time though!

 

[contro]

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

GWB wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c7if9c$i1i$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> ahh, I see! What are the limitations in other government types for
>> military units in cities? Happiness wise or what not?
>
> Just check the civilopedia...there's only like 8 governments to go
> thru to see about military police, etc.

True. don't know where I'd be without it really!

>
>> Is it still worth the anarchy time it takes to get to and from
>> feudalism though?
>
> If you are a religious civ it's a no brainer. If I was a
> non-religious civ, I might hold off on feudalism and go to Republic
> maybe. The typical answer of "it depends" applies.
>

LOL as I think I said before, the way there are a lot of "it depends" is
what makes civ so good, as there are so many ways to do things!

 

[contro]

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

The Stare wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c7ifbm$i38$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Stare wrote:
>>>>> "Contro"
>>>>>
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>>> wrote in message news:c7agn0$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).
>>
>> ahh! Yes, I forgot about that
>>
>>>
>>> With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic --
>>> get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.
>>
>> Sounds like a good way to do it really! What happens if you
>> complete the apollo program before 2050, do you still get the
>> animation? Is there any point building the space parts still, or do
>> you not get any points for doing so?
>
> If the SS condition is off, you cannot build the apollo program.

ahh, I see

With
> it on, apollo doesn't give you the win, it only lets you build the SS
> parts. You don't win via SS unless you build all the parts before
> anyone else.

Sorry, yes, that's what I meant

>
> If you play out to 2050 for a histographic win, there is no bonus and
> your score will be what it says on the victory condition page. The
> ingame bonus is (2050 - year of win) * difficulty factor. Thus for
> HOF purposes, an early win will tend to give you bigger scores unless
> you learn to milk the game.

I have a feeling a lot of you guys are good at that milking! Especially
from what you've mentioned!

 

[contro]

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

Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:49:52 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well when they attack a fascist or "communist" state, they get
>> executed. Zero tollerance for terrorism in those kind of places!
>
> You aren't suggesting, are you, that there is a lot of tolerance for
> Terror in democracies? Timothy McViegh was put to death, for example.

Well, America is a unique case it has to be said! But well, I do know what
you mean. But I was also meaning that any resistance, no matter how small,
would have zero tollerance. Terrorist acts that didn't kill people for
instance. And there would not be any messing about. Anyone thought to even
think bad things against the leaders would be killed. Not just if they have
commited terrorism.

>
> Speaking as a member of the liberal wing of America's collective
> voice

LOL I like the way you put that

, I suppose you could assume there is a degree of tolerance
> seeing as our "president" has never been very committed to waging a
> war on terror since 9 - 11... Although he has been a stalwart
> opponent of phantom terror in Iraq.
>

Well, it's just the differences in Democracies I was meaning. Yes,
terrorism and "thinking againsnt the grain" are usually treated as the wrong
thing to do, and shown to be so, but in fascist states and what not, you
don't have to kill people before you can be killed yourself. That is how I
meant it really. And of course, it's only really America that is a leading
democracy and still has the death penalty. Most other democracies (that I
know of anyway) don't have the death penalty.

 

[contro]

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

jhking wrote:
> Guys, maybe we could move the politics to another group? I have a
> huge interest in current events and believe our lives depend on an
> accurate understanding of same, but I come to a.g.c3 in part as a
> respite from those serious things.

Yes, sorry about that! I knew I should have kept quiet about such things.
Sorry it seemed like I'd disappeared for a while too. I've had a very busy
week and a half, so just couldn't come in to post. But sorry again! Didn't
mean to leave you with this

 

[contro]

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

Alfredo Tutino wrote:
> < cut >
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Civ2 had two requirements for this.
>>
>> #1 -- the capital city must be taken by an enemy.
>> #2 -- the civ must be larger than the player's civ in population.
>>
>> Anarchy wouldn't cause the split.
>
> < cut >
>
> IIRC, you're right about anarchy having nothing to do with the split
> - there was another condition, however: there had to be less than 8
> civ left on the map - that was because in Civ 2 there weren't but 8
> possible colours and civs.
> Of course that would not be a factor in Civ 3.

it does sound an interesting take on the game! Why do you think they left
it out of civ 3?

 

[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:c8dqmt$9h4$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Alfredo Tutino wrote:
> > < cut >
> >
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Civ2 had two requirements for this.
> >>
> >> #1 -- the capital city must be taken by an enemy.
> >> #2 -- the civ must be larger than the player's civ in population.
> >>
> >> Anarchy wouldn't cause the split.
> >
> > < cut >
> >
> > IIRC, you're right about anarchy having nothing to do with the split
> > - there was another condition, however: there had to be less than 8
> > civ left on the map - that was because in Civ 2 there weren't but 8
> > possible colours and civs.
> > Of course that would not be a factor in Civ 3.
>
> it does sound an interesting take on the game! Why do you think they left
> it out of civ 3?

It probably was decided it didn't fit thier historical accuracy model. I'm
sure arguements could be found for it however.

I remember one of the developers saying "what if you ended up with 17 civs?"
Nobody nor he must have thought of "just do a check first."

It's purely nostalgic for earlier versions.

 

[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:c8dq34$7l8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Stare wrote:
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c7ifbm$i38$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
> >>>
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The Stare wrote:
> >>>>> "Contro"
> >>>>>
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> >>>>> wrote in message news:c7agn0$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).
> >>
> >> ahh! Yes, I forgot about that
> >>
> >>>
> >>> With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic --
> >>> get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.
> >>
> >> Sounds like a good way to do it really! What happens if you
> >> complete the apollo program before 2050, do you still get the
> >> animation? Is there any point building the space parts still, or do
> >> you not get any points for doing so?
> >
> > If the SS condition is off, you cannot build the apollo program.
>
> ahh, I see
>
> With
> > it on, apollo doesn't give you the win, it only lets you build the SS
> > parts. You don't win via SS unless you build all the parts before
> > anyone else.
>
> Sorry, yes, that's what I meant
>
> >
> > If you play out to 2050 for a histographic win, there is no bonus and
> > your score will be what it says on the victory condition page. The
> > ingame bonus is (2050 - year of win) * difficulty factor. Thus for
> > HOF purposes, an early win will tend to give you bigger scores unless
> > you learn to milk the game.
>
> I have a feeling a lot of you guys are good at that milking! Especially
> from what you've mentioned!

Milking a game is extremely tedious and time consuming.

 

[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:c8dpt3$uv6$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Stare wrote:
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c7if59$hu6$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Mike Garcia wrote:
> >>> 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. 🙂
> >>
> >> LOL
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> it does sound quite interesting! but what are it's bad points
> >> though? Are they that it isn't democracy? I guess it would be good
> >> to have a huge army for free! How is it that your outer cities are
> >> more productive than the inner ones though?
> >
> > Corruption in communisn is 'communal'. The empire wide base
> > corruption is spread evenly between your cities. Courthouses and
> > police stations reduce it in cities they are in. Thus your core
> > cities have as much corruption as the previous 1 shield wonders under
> > a different form. However, the far flung cities now have much less
> > corruption than they would under any other form of gov't.
>
> ahhh, I see. Thanks!
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> oh no! Why is that?
> >
> > For each pop rush, 1 citizen is made unhappy for 20 turns. If you pop
> > 2 citizens and are only left with one, that one will be unhappy for
> > 40 turns. Pop rushing alot of citizens can make for a very unhappy
> > city for a very long time.
>
> Oh right! I was always a bit unsure about doing that.....but well, I
guess
> one person isn't a lot. 20 or 40 turns is quite a length of time though!

True, but the game is 540 turns long to 2050AD.

 

[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:c8dq34$7l8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> The Stare wrote:
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote in message news:c7ifbm$i38$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
>>>>>
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Stare wrote:
>>>>>>> "Contro"
>>>>>>>
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>>>>> wrote in message news:c7agn0$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).
>>>>
>>>> ahh! Yes, I forgot about that
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic
>>>>> -- get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a good way to do it really! What happens if you
>>>> complete the apollo program before 2050, do you still get the
>>>> animation? Is there any point building the space parts still, or
>>>> do you not get any points for doing so?
>>>
>>> If the SS condition is off, you cannot build the apollo program.
>>
>> ahh, I see
>>
>> With
>>> it on, apollo doesn't give you the win, it only lets you build the
>>> SS parts. You don't win via SS unless you build all the parts before
>>> anyone else.
>>
>> Sorry, yes, that's what I meant
>>
>>>
>>> If you play out to 2050 for a histographic win, there is no bonus
>>> and your score will be what it says on the victory condition page.
>>> The ingame bonus is (2050 - year of win) * difficulty factor. Thus
>>> for HOF purposes, an early win will tend to give you bigger scores
>>> unless you learn to milk the game.
>>
>> I have a feeling a lot of you guys are good at that milking!
>> Especially from what you've mentioned!
>
> Milking a game is extremely tedious and time consuming.

So you don't do that? Isn't it a way to get more time out of the game...to
see how far you can get your score and the like?

Mind you, I guess it is nice to be able to get a score without trying to
keep the game going for longer than it would have

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:13:33 +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:c8dq34$7l8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> The Stare wrote:
>>>> "Contro"
>>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>> wrote in message news:c7ifbm$i38$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
>>>>>>
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Stare wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Contro"
>>>>>>>>
>>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:c7agn0$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).
>>>>>
>>>>> ahh! Yes, I forgot about that
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic
>>>>>> -- get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a good way to do it really! What happens if you
>>>>> complete the apollo program before 2050, do you still get the
>>>>> animation? Is there any point building the space parts still, or
>>>>> do you not get any points for doing so?
>>>>
>>>> If the SS condition is off, you cannot build the apollo program.
>>>
>>> ahh, I see
>>>
>>> With
>>>> it on, apollo doesn't give you the win, it only lets you build the
>>>> SS parts. You don't win via SS unless you build all the parts before
>>>> anyone else.
>>>
>>> Sorry, yes, that's what I meant
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you play out to 2050 for a histographic win, there is no bonus
>>>> and your score will be what it says on the victory condition page.
>>>> The ingame bonus is (2050 - year of win) * difficulty factor. Thus
>>>> for HOF purposes, an early win will tend to give you bigger scores
>>>> unless you learn to milk the game.
>>>
>>> I have a feeling a lot of you guys are good at that milking!
>>> Especially from what you've mentioned!
>>
>> Milking a game is extremely tedious and time consuming.
>
>So you don't do that? Isn't it a way to get more time out of the game...to
>see how far you can get your score and the like?

Once or twice.

OK, a few times. But I got a lot of that out of my system with Civ1
-- I remember a game I played on Chieftain level, pushed the score
over 5000, exploited the tech system to get space travel in 100AD
(yeah, they did fix that in Civ2 and *really* made sure you can't come
close in Civ3, barring game edits), but most of all, as I had tech and
map dominance so early in the game, the rest of micromanaging land and
city development. I rush-bought everything once I had most cities
making wealth, exploited as much land mass as I could (maxed the
cities -- 127 was the limit in that one).

It is nice to know that you *can* keep on racking up a score, but
once you've done it there is less temptation to do it again.


>Mind you, I guess it is nice to be able to get a score without trying to
>keep the game going for longer than it would have

Also, you can simply play on after winning. No score, but if you
want to see what you can do it can be a lot of fun. See if you can
conquer everyone, see how well you can develop your cities, etc.



--
*-__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?)

The Stare wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c8dqmt$9h4$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Alfredo Tutino wrote:
>>> < cut >
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Civ2 had two requirements for this.
>>>>
>>>> #1 -- the capital city must be taken by an enemy.
>>>> #2 -- the civ must be larger than the player's civ in population.
>>>>
>>>> Anarchy wouldn't cause the split.
>>>
>>> < cut >
>>>
>>> IIRC, you're right about anarchy having nothing to do with the split
>>> - there was another condition, however: there had to be less than 8
>>> civ left on the map - that was because in Civ 2 there weren't but 8
>>> possible colours and civs.
>>> Of course that would not be a factor in Civ 3.
>>
>> it does sound an interesting take on the game! Why do you think
>> they left it out of civ 3?
>
> It probably was decided it didn't fit thier historical accuracy
> model. I'm sure arguements could be found for it however.
>

Well, I think it would have been nice. A bit odd, like you say, that the
celts could appear from part of Russia, but well, I guess you could always
have the option to turn it off or something.

> I remember one of the developers saying "what if you ended up with 17
> civs?" Nobody nor he must have thought of "just do a check first."
>

LOL exactly!

> It's purely nostalgic for earlier versions.

It is a nice touch. Hopefully in the next civ they can have civs that only
appear from other civs that break up or what not. That would be a good
thing I think!

 

[contro]

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

>>>>
>>>> it does sound quite interesting! but what are it's bad points
>>>> though? Are they that it isn't democracy? I guess it would be good
>>>> to have a huge army for free! How is it that your outer cities are
>>>> more productive than the inner ones though?
>>>
>>> Corruption in communisn is 'communal'. The empire wide base
>>> corruption is spread evenly between your cities. Courthouses and
>>> police stations reduce it in cities they are in. Thus your core
>>> cities have as much corruption as the previous 1 shield wonders
>>> under a different form. However, the far flung cities now have much
>>> less corruption than they would under any other form of gov't.
>>
>> ahhh, I see. Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> oh no! Why is that?
>>>
>>> For each pop rush, 1 citizen is made unhappy for 20 turns. If you
>>> pop 2 citizens and are only left with one, that one will be unhappy
>>> for 40 turns. Pop rushing alot of citizens can make for a very
>>> unhappy city for a very long time.
>>
>> Oh right! I was always a bit unsure about doing that.....but well,
>> I guess one person isn't a lot. 20 or 40 turns is quite a length of
>> time though!
>
> True, but the game is 540 turns long to 2050AD.

LOL yes, I guess it isn't a large price for that long a period of time in
the grand scheme of things! I was thinking that 20 turns did seem like a
lot, but I guess it isn't that bad.

 

[contro]

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

>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> oh no! Why is that?
>>>
>>> For each pop rush, 1 citizen is made unhappy for 20 turns. If you
>>> pop 2 citizens and are only left with one, that one will be unhappy
>>> for 40 turns. Pop rushing alot of citizens can make for a very
>>> unhappy city for a very long time.
>>
>> Oh right! I was always a bit unsure about doing that.....but well,
>> I guess one person isn't a lot. 20 or 40 turns is quite a length of
>> time though!
>
> True, but the game is 540 turns long to 2050AD.

LOL yes, I guess it isn't a large price for that long a period of time in
the grand scheme of things! I was thinking that 20 turns did seem like a
lot, but I guess it isn't that bad.

 

[contro]

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

Contro wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> oh no! Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> For each pop rush, 1 citizen is made unhappy for 20 turns. If you
>>>> pop 2 citizens and are only left with one, that one will be unhappy
>>>> for 40 turns. Pop rushing alot of citizens can make for a very
>>>> unhappy city for a very long time.
>>>
>>> Oh right! I was always a bit unsure about doing that.....but well,
>>> I guess one person isn't a lot. 20 or 40 turns is quite a length of
>>> time though!
>>
>> True, but the game is 540 turns long to 2050AD.
>
> LOL yes, I guess it isn't a large price for that long a period of
> time in the grand scheme of things! I was thinking that 20 turns did
> seem like a lot, but I guess it isn't that bad.

Sorry if I have sent this email about 3 times by the way....it wouldn't
send, so then I tried to send it, and I think it sent, but didn't look like
it had! Sorry about that!

And sorry if I have missed any replies to my posts since I was gone.....I
think I caught them all, but there was quite a few posts when I got back, so
I'm not sure if some were missed as they were around other ones. Sorry if
that was the case!

 

[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:c8g84f$87c$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Stare wrote:
> >
> > Milking a game is extremely tedious and time consuming.
>
> So you don't do that? Isn't it a way to get more time out of the
game...to
> see how far you can get your score and the like?

When i play, i keep an eye on how things are looking to see if it might be a
candidate. I don't intentionally start a game just to milk it.

> Mind you, I guess it is nice to be able to get a score without trying to
> keep the game going for longer than it would have

For milking game ideas and examples, check out the civfanatics high score
hall of fame (or HOF) and the associated forum.
..
I was in 2nd place for awhile on monarch level with somewhere around 20,000
points.