same thing we do every night pinky...try to take over the ..

[Guest]

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

I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.

The further away cities are from your capital, the more efficiency you lose
to corruption. When conquering or establishing cities on islands or other
continents, is almost impossible to get any production out of those cities,
even if they have a high population. In many cases, it costs more to
garrison troops there to defend it than you actually produce. Many of the
production items serve as accelerators to future production, but it seems to
take forever (hundreds of turns) to build them up.

Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck with one
nation on the far side of the world that has too much local production
capability to conquer. All my production capability is spent defending far
flung conquests and transporting troops. Once fighting starts in earnest
with this last nation, I just can't get troops built or transported there
fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the continent.

Is there a strategy to over come the natural inefficiency of far flung
cities, or is that just the natural balancing aspect of the game to keep it
interesting and to reflect a "bloated empire" that crumbles under its own
weight before it conquers everyone else. History books are filled with
examples of this.

--
Tom McMahon

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:55:21 -0700, "micktee" <micktee@cox.net> wrote:

>I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.
>
>The further away cities are from your capital, the more efficiency you lose
>to corruption. When conquering or establishing cities on islands or other
>continents, is almost impossible to get any production out of those cities,
>even if they have a high population. In many cases, it costs more to
>garrison troops there to defend it than you actually produce. Many of the
>production items serve as accelerators to future production, but it seems to
>take forever (hundreds of turns) to build them up.
>
>Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck with one
>nation on the far side of the world that has too much local production
>capability to conquer. All my production capability is spent defending far
>flung conquests and transporting troops. Once fighting starts in earnest
>with this last nation, I just can't get troops built or transported there
>fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the continent.
>
>Is there a strategy to over come the natural inefficiency of far flung
>cities, or is that just the natural balancing aspect of the game to keep it
>interesting and to reflect a "bloated empire" that crumbles under its own
>weight before it conquers everyone else. History books are filled with
>examples of this.

Your earliest cities are always going to be your best. Place your
forbidden palace well so you get good core producing cities. Then let
cities added later just produce whatever they can.

I only know of two ways to get these cities going.

One is to rush build whatever you can. For instance a factory or
courthouse might get them going a bit.

The other is to switch to Communism. You will take an income hit in
Communism. If you have enough cities you can eventually get it back
by building them all up. Your corruption is spread evenly among your
cities. The added army support discounts can help out alot if you
have a large army. And your people will love it when you conquer you
enemies.

I guess there is a third option now that think about it. You don't
necessarily have to keep all those cities. Often times it isn't worth
trying to defend them. In that case I will often raze cities. The
AI will really hate you for this. But if you are big enough who cares
what they all think.

 

[Guest]

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

Armys will help a lot in far away places. I usually save some armies for
transporting to a new continent so that I can get a somewhat easy foothold
in enemy territory. In ancient or early medieval age I usually only put one
troop in an army and then load it on a boat. Then when I go to the other
continent and drop off the one troop army with some other troops. On the
next turn, I fill up the other two spots in the army and wham!, let em have
it. Armies have the ability to heal in enemy territory. Back to the topic,
my armies usually kill 50+ times more units than a three single units. And
most enemies won't attack an army unless they have a huge stack. If you
have more than one army in enemy territory send one deep into enemy's land
pillaging. You can pillage all squares around the capital and then no
resources or luxaries for them.

"micktee" <micktee@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eJBmd.123125$cJ3.68887@fed1read06...
> I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.
>
> The further away cities are from your capital, the more efficiency you
> lose to corruption. When conquering or establishing cities on islands or
> other continents, is almost impossible to get any production out of those
> cities, even if they have a high population. In many cases, it costs more
> to garrison troops there to defend it than you actually produce. Many of
> the production items serve as accelerators to future production, but it
> seems to take forever (hundreds of turns) to build them up.
>
> Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck with one
> nation on the far side of the world that has too much local production
> capability to conquer. All my production capability is spent defending
> far flung conquests and transporting troops. Once fighting starts in
> earnest with this last nation, I just can't get troops built or
> transported there fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the
> continent.
>
> Is there a strategy to over come the natural inefficiency of far flung
> cities, or is that just the natural balancing aspect of the game to keep
> it interesting and to reflect a "bloated empire" that crumbles under its
> own weight before it conquers everyone else. History books are filled
> with examples of this.
>
> --
> Tom McMahon
>

 

[alex]

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

"micktee" <micktee@cox.net> wrote in message news:eJBmd.123125$cJ3.68887@fed1read06...

> Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck with one
> nation on the far side of the world that has too much local production
> capability to conquer. All my production capability is spent defending far
> flung conquests and transporting troops. Once fighting starts in earnest
> with this last nation, I just can't get troops built or transported there
> fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the continent.

Sending troops into battle as they arrive is a bad idea. This is how AI
does its business and the reason why AI rarely achieves success. In C3C
AI escorts each transport with three escort ships and typically can
unload one or two transports at a time, total 6-12 modern armors. This
force is far insufficient and easily destroyed by either human player or
other AI (I use radar artillery for that).

A better way to do naval invasion is to create a huge invasion force of
150-200 units, load them on 30-40 transports and unload all at once
right after declaration of war. Those units should be the armies of
modern armors, mech infantry, artillery and some other auxiliary units.
When sending troops overseas do not be afraid to leave you mainland
virtually undefended. Even if AI tries to counter-invade it will do so
with very limited force, in addition your core will produce a lot of
new units after your expedition departed. A spy will give an idea what
kind of resistance you could expect.

At higher levels all of this is still not enough. The solution is to
keep several AI in the game, and let them destroy each other.
You job is to gradually reduce them one after one,
in alliance with the others, maintaining the balance of power of AIs
remaining in the game. During this phase you do not need to capture
enemy territory, destroying their cores by precision bombing is
quite enough. You will also notice when invading AI mainland after
prolonged war that they have a lot of mech infantry, but few
offensive units. Offensive units suffer the most in inter-AI wars
and cannot be drafted.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:55:21 -0700, "micktee" <micktee@cox.net> wrote:

>I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.
>

I generally play on the Regent level, so this may not work on higher
levels.

I no longer pre-determine the type victory I want to have. I leave
open Science, Diplomatic and Domination on all games. However, once
in a while I turn off Domination so I can play to the death.

Your problem may not only be due to the distance, but also the optimum
number of cities. When I play, I build up a good core of cities from
the beginning. Generally I try to build ten cities as quickly as
possible. Five are dedicated to building improvements and wonders and
the other five focus on military, workers and settlers. Later when
the first five are far enough ahead, I reverse the roles.

Early on in the game, if I find a neighbor too close for comfort or
that may restrict my growth, I may restart the game and focus early
attention on destroying that opponent and or taking his cities. The
faster I get my core, the better.

Once I have my core built up, I will probably have run out of
expansion room and will have to pick an enemy. As soon as I pick a
neighbor to fight and start to move troops that way, another one will
attack so I have to shift my focus and regroup for another direction.

Anyway, once I start getting spread out, rather than take cities, I
often only keep them long enough to heal and stockpile troops. Rather
than deal with their construction woes, I set them to wealth and leave
them alone.

When taking over countries across the seas, I have one city that
spends most of its life building troop transports. When I go to
another island etc, I take no less than 30 troops together. I take
the closest city to my country first and rush build the harbor and
airport when it is available. After that I might build the barracks
so I can upgrade troops that arrive, but then I set the city to wealth
and leave it alone. As I take cities on the new continent, I only
keep them long enough to heal and regroup troops to move on. After
that I either destroy them or set them on wealth. Sometimes I set
them up to make settlers. That way I can setup "base" where I want.
I always import lots of workers. In fact, when I have railroads, the
more the merrier. In some cases I can take a city and have rail to it
in the same turn. Once airports are in play, things are easier. I
rush build airports in all the most critical cities and as I produce
military, I airlift it directly to where it is needed. When I am
finished with a game, the map will be my big cluster of cities and
what looks like a thread of beads across the continents.

Or, it may look like i was wiped out, pending the winner of the game.


Good luck

Buck
For What its Worth,

Buck

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:55:21 -0700, micktee <micktee@cox.net> wrote:
> I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.

I'm slightly less-novice so forgive my possible errors in responding.

> Many of the
> production items serve as accelerators to future production, but it seems to
> take forever (hundreds of turns) to build them up.

Yup. I'm thinking it might make sense to make them barely sustain themselves,
give 'em a library and temple, and make as many scientists as I can. I
don't _think_ that corruption degrades science output...anyone?

> Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck with one
> nation on the far side of the world that has too much local production
> capability to conquer. All my production capability is spent defending far
> flung conquests and transporting troops. Once fighting starts in earnest
> with this last nation, I just can't get troops built or transported there
> fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the continent.

Airports are the key. I don't try intercontinental warfare unless I can
avoid it, until I have flight and tanks. If I'm going for a conquest
victory, I could turn research down to 10% or even 0% at that point, since
the goal isn't to make it to Alpha Centauri at that point. Get an airport
in a town on the other continent, give that town library, temple, and
courthouse (police station too, maybe?) so it won't flip. Put airports
in each of your tank-producing cities, so when the tank gets built, you can
whisk it directly to the city on the other continent, no transports needed.

In case that city _does_ flip, I put everything beyond the first dozen
tanks on squares around that city, so I don't lose 'em. Stack 'em up
until you think you have enough, and go for it. I prefer to destroy
cities when I'm doing this sort of an attack, so I don't have to tie up
units trying to keep resistance down in a 26-population city. Use
those transports to get settlers over there (they don't go by air, it
seems), and build new cities where the old ones were. They grow reasonably
fast because all the roads, irrigation, and all that are in place
already.

> Is there a strategy to over come the natural inefficiency of far flung
> cities, or is that just the natural balancing aspect of the game to keep it
> interesting and to reflect a "bloated empire" that crumbles under its own
> weight before it conquers everyone else. History books are filled with
> examples of this.

I think it's a reasonably accurate model of reality. Maybe getting the
troops over there quicker by air, and not having to garrison dozens of 'em
in captured cities, will give you the boost you need?

Who has corrections, refinements, or "what the hell are you thinking"
comments on my post, please?

Dave Hinz

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Nov 2004 15:43:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:55:21 -0700, micktee <micktee@cox.net> wrote:
>> I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.
>
>I'm slightly less-novice so forgive my possible errors in responding.
>
>> Many of the
>> production items serve as accelerators to future production, but it seems to
>> take forever (hundreds of turns) to build them up.
>
>Yup. I'm thinking it might make sense to make them barely sustain themselves,
>give 'em a library and temple, and make as many scientists as I can. I
>don't _think_ that corruption degrades science output...anyone?

Corruption and waste degrade commerce and production - trade arrows
and shields. Science, taxes, and luxuries all come from commerce, so
science indeed is hit by it. The scientists, OTOH, aren't (nor are
tax collectors, or in C3C, civil engineers).

Food is not affected. Specialist citizens aren't affected. Luxury
resources aren't penalized. Shields from chopping down trees aren't
penalized.



>> Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck with one
>> nation on the far side of the world that has too much local production
>> capability to conquer. All my production capability is spent defending far
>> flung conquests and transporting troops. Once fighting starts in earnest
>> with this last nation, I just can't get troops built or transported there
>> fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the continent.
>
>Airports are the key. I don't try intercontinental warfare unless I can
>avoid it, until I have flight and tanks. If I'm going for a conquest
>victory, I could turn research down to 10% or even 0% at that point, since
>the goal isn't to make it to Alpha Centauri at that point. Get an airport
>in a town on the other continent, give that town library, temple, and
>courthouse (police station too, maybe?) so it won't flip. Put airports
>in each of your tank-producing cities, so when the tank gets built, you can
>whisk it directly to the city on the other continent, no transports needed.

If you have to do this before you have airports, you need to
transport your forces before the war starts. That of course means
having a city on it, but if you're planning on conquest you should try
to get one by any means. And of course, one city with an airport can
receive any number of units, and airlits pretty much solve the
reinforcement problems.

Alternatively, armies do a good job of establishing a beachhead.
The AI is bad at killing armies.

>
>> Is there a strategy to over come the natural inefficiency of far flung
>> cities, or is that just the natural balancing aspect of the game to keep it
>> interesting and to reflect a "bloated empire" that crumbles under its own
>> weight before it conquers everyone else. History books are filled with
>> examples of this.
>
>I think it's a reasonably accurate model of reality. Maybe getting the
>troops over there quicker by air, and not having to garrison dozens of 'em
>in captured cities, will give you the boost you need?

It does the job, even if it feels funny. OTOH, I'd rather deal with
loss of production than riots and insurgency, which would be even more
realistic for huge empires.
--
*-__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?)

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:3019s4F2qvk8pU4@uni-berlin.de:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:55:21 -0700, micktee <micktee@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> I'm a novice player so forgive my ignorance.
>
> I'm slightly less-novice so forgive my possible errors in
> responding.
>
>> Many of the
>> production items serve as accelerators to future production, but
>> it seems to take forever (hundreds of turns) to build them up.
>
> Yup. I'm thinking it might make sense to make them barely sustain
> themselves, give 'em a library and temple, and make as many
> scientists as I can. I don't _think_ that corruption degrades
> science output...anyone?

AFAIK, corruption does not affect any specialist output.

>> Whenever I try to conquer the entire world, I always get stuck
>> with one nation on the far side of the world that has too much
>> local production capability to conquer. All my production
>> capability is spent defending far flung conquests and
>> transporting troops. Once fighting starts in earnest with this
>> last nation, I just can't get troops built or transported there
>> fast enough to conquer it, and I get pushed off the continent.
>
> Airports are the key. I don't try intercontinental warfare unless
> I can avoid it, until I have flight and tanks. If I'm going for a
> conquest victory, I could turn research down to 10% or even 0% at
> that point, since the goal isn't to make it to Alpha Centauri at
> that point. Get an airport in a town on the other continent, give
> that town library, temple, and courthouse (police station too,
> maybe?) so it won't flip. Put airports in each of your
> tank-producing cities, so when the tank gets built, you can whisk
> it directly to the city on the other continent, no transports
> needed.

I agree completely. Ship over enough forces to build and hold one
city. Rush build an airport and fly it all in. The thing to remember
about airports is that they can only send one unit per turn, but they
can receive any number of units. Air units can rebase without limits
as well.

> In case that city _does_ flip, I put everything beyond the first
> dozen tanks on squares around that city, so I don't lose 'em.
> Stack 'em up until you think you have enough, and go for it. I
> prefer to destroy cities when I'm doing this sort of an attack, so
> I don't have to tie up units trying to keep resistance down in a
> 26-population city. Use those transports to get settlers over
> there (they don't go by air, it seems), and build new cities where
> the old ones were. They grow reasonably fast because all the
> roads, irrigation, and all that are in place already.
>
>> Is there a strategy to over come the natural inefficiency of far
>> flung cities, or is that just the natural balancing aspect of the
>> game to keep it interesting and to reflect a "bloated empire"
>> that crumbles under its own weight before it conquers everyone
>> else. History books are filled with examples of this.
>
> I think it's a reasonably accurate model of reality. Maybe
> getting the troops over there quicker by air, and not having to
> garrison dozens of 'em in captured cities, will give you the boost
> you need?
>
> Who has corrections, refinements, or "what the hell are you
> thinking" comments on my post, please?

The only other important tip I can think of is not to do invasions
piecemeal. Either send enough forces to do the job, or don't send any
at all.


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

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:58:04 -0600, Jeffery S Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2004 15:43:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Yup. I'm thinking it might make sense to make them barely sustain themselves,
>>give 'em a library and temple, and make as many scientists as I can. I
>>don't _think_ that corruption degrades science output...anyone?
>
> Food is not affected. Specialist citizens aren't affected. Luxury
> resources aren't penalized. Shields from chopping down trees aren't
> penalized.

So, let 'em almost starve by turning as many of 'em into scientists as
possible, then, sounds reasonable?

>>Airports are the key. I don't try intercontinental warfare unless I can
>>avoid it, until I have flight and tanks.
>
> If you have to do this before you have airports, you need to
> transport your forces before the war starts. That of course means
> having a city on it, but if you're planning on conquest you should try
> to get one by any means.

I just finished a game where egypt wasn't my target yet, but they chose to
attack me. Fine...dropped in a pile of tanks and a settler, made a town,
and then did nothing. They dropped off a boatload of troops at a time
on my mainland, I dealt with those and air-dropped the leftover new units from
that turn into my city on their main continent.

Looked south, they had a small-ish island with _one_ open spot that wasn't
in their borders. Dropped same (settler & tanks) there, built another city.
Eventually Cleo decided she had had enough, and asked for a treaty.
I gave it to her, made my people happy, and allowed me to build up the
invasion force without having to juggle moods and all that. Worked
_very_ well; I took the main continent with about 70 modern armor.

> And of course, one city with an airport can
> receive any number of units, and airlits pretty much solve the
> reinforcement problems.

Yes, I should have made that point.

> Alternatively, armies do a good job of establishing a beachhead.
> The AI is bad at killing armies.

I'll keep that in mind. They're a nuisance to transport, so I haven't
used them much. Or, can I move them by othe than transport ship?

>>I think it's a reasonably accurate model of reality. Maybe getting the
>>troops over there quicker by air, and not having to garrison dozens of 'em
>>in captured cities, will give you the boost you need?

> It does the job, even if it feels funny. OTOH, I'd rather deal with
> loss of production than riots and insurgency, which would be even more
> realistic for huge empires.

Then again, when they do flip, it's usually pretty easy to get them
re-captured if you do it right away. I've been toying with using
settlers as a way of making the railroads passable in enemy territory.
Their cities have a huge ROI because of culture, but if I drop settlers
in every 4 spaces or so, I can get a corridor of "my" territory from which
to work. The new cities don't have to have much if any improvements
at first, because they're just there to make the railroads work right for
the invading force (me). Couple tanks each and move on. It's not like
I'm gonna piss off the enemy by building in their territory, because
they're already pissed off at me at that point. Anyone else doing this?

Dave Hinz

 

[Guest]

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

In article <301mf4F2q4htnU4@uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:58:04 -0600, Jeffery S Jones <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2004 15:43:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Yup. I'm thinking it might make sense to make them barely sustain
>>>themselves, give 'em a library and temple, and make as many
>>>scientists as I can. I don't _think_ that corruption degrades science
>>>output...anyone?
>>
>> Food is not affected. Specialist citizens aren't affected. Luxury
>> resources aren't penalized. Shields from chopping down trees aren't
>> penalized.
>
>So, let 'em almost starve by turning as many of 'em into scientists as
>possible, then, sounds reasonable?

You're not blood thirsty enough. Switch to Communism. Pop rush a Library.
Pop rush a Temple. Then pop rush workers until the city is down to size 1.

Problem solved.


Mike G

 

[Guest]

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

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:301mf4F2q4htnU4@uni-berlin.de...
>
> I'll keep that in mind. They're a nuisance to transport, so I haven't
> used them much. Or, can I move them by othe than transport ship?
>
If there is any other way of transporting armies, I haven't found it. You
cannot airlift an empty army and you cannot airlift a great leader (tried
both in my last game). But a few armies of modern armor are worth the
transportation hassles.

Stella

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:14:29 -0500, "Black Dog" <fake@ihatespam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:301mf4F2q4htnU4@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> I'll keep that in mind. They're a nuisance to transport, so I haven't
>> used them much. Or, can I move them by othe than transport ship?
>>
>If there is any other way of transporting armies, I haven't found it. You
>cannot airlift an empty army and you cannot airlift a great leader (tried
>both in my last game). But a few armies of modern armor are worth the
>transportation hassles.

Army transports can be a double hassle in some scenarios where you
can make an army larger than you can transport on a ship. The
workaround is transporting the army with fewer units in it, then
adding them once you get to the new continent. But then, they are
stuck there -- unless you can develop a larger ship.

The inability to airlift is more than made up for by the increased
power, especially vs. the AI. Conquests enhances them even more --
added speed, and with the right tech, increased combat stats, plus the
blitz ability. Also, amphibious ability is retained *if* all units
within are amphib (can't recall if airdrop is retained if all are
paratroopers). Plus armies always can heal in enemy territory, which
is another edge for them.

One army can "stand guard" on an entire stack, reducing the ability
of the enemy to engage. This alone greatly increases the power of
beachheads, because you will lose few or no units. The AI rarely
hammers an army outside a city unless it can expect to kill it with
the unit attacking, and that isn't likely to happen unless they have
an army of their own.
--
*-__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?)

>>
>> I'll keep that in mind. They're a nuisance to transport, so I haven't
>> used them much. Or, can I move them by othe than transport ship?
>>
> If there is any other way of transporting armies, I haven't found it. You
> cannot airlift an empty army and you cannot airlift a great leader (tried
> both in my last game). But a few armies of modern armor are worth the
> transportation hassles.
>
> Stella
>

Essentially, you move the army in a galley,caravel,galleon, by loading it up
completely. You send it to its destination and then load up the remaining
spots.

data64

 

[Guest]

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

In article <2rvqp05jqt2bl4h7e9eba9r83kaejhl9g4@4ax.com>, jeffsj@execpc.com wrote:
<snip?
> The inability to airlift is more than made up for by the increased
>power, especially vs. the AI. Conquests enhances them even more --
>added speed, and with the right tech, increased combat stats, plus the
>blitz ability. Also, amphibious ability is retained *if* all units
>within are amphib (can't recall if airdrop is retained if all are
>paratroopers). Plus armies always can heal in enemy territory, which
>is another edge for them.

I know that all-Berserk or all-Marine Armies are amphibious. I've never mixed
Berserks and Marines in an Army so I don't know. I know that an
all-Paratrooper Army can not be air dropped.

In C3C Armies can pillage for free. Since the AI is reluctant to attack an
Army in the open this is almost an exploit. Send an Army deep and cut all
roads into the enemy Capital and their trade net collapses.

> One army can "stand guard" on an entire stack, reducing the ability
>of the enemy to engage. This alone greatly increases the power of
>beachheads, because you will lose few or no units. The AI rarely
>hammers an army outside a city unless it can expect to kill it with
>the unit attacking, and that isn't likely to happen unless they have
>an army of their own.

The AI will bombard Armies with Bombers. If the Army gets weak enough the AI
will then attack with ground units which will probably kill the Army.


Mike G

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:41:51 GMT,
mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:

>In article <2rvqp05jqt2bl4h7e9eba9r83kaejhl9g4@4ax.com>, jeffsj@execpc.com wrote:
><snip?
>> The inability to airlift is more than made up for by the increased
>>power, especially vs. the AI. Conquests enhances them even more --
>>added speed, and with the right tech, increased combat stats, plus the
>>blitz ability. Also, amphibious ability is retained *if* all units
>>within are amphib (can't recall if airdrop is retained if all are
>>paratroopers). Plus armies always can heal in enemy territory, which
>>is another edge for them.
>
>I know that all-Berserk or all-Marine Armies are amphibious. I've never mixed
>Berserks and Marines in an Army so I don't know. I know that an
>all-Paratrooper Army can not be air dropped.
>
>In C3C Armies can pillage for free. Since the AI is reluctant to attack an
>Army in the open this is almost an exploit. Send an Army deep and cut all
>roads into the enemy Capital and their trade net collapses.

It is a smart tactic, and the effectiveness of army pillaging seemed
balanced -- except for the lack of AI response. I'd like to see the
AI get smarter about killing armies, rather than not use the tactic.

As it is -- and this applies in any version of civ3 -- army
pillaging is a very effective way to attack.

The vulnerability of the capital is an issue. I like having
capitals be on the coast, so that cutting road nets alone won't kill
the trade net. Nuking an inland capital wrecks all the roads, and
while the AI can do it back to you, I try to make my capital on the
coast.

>> One army can "stand guard" on an entire stack, reducing the ability
>>of the enemy to engage. This alone greatly increases the power of
>>beachheads, because you will lose few or no units. The AI rarely
>>hammers an army outside a city unless it can expect to kill it with
>>the unit attacking, and that isn't likely to happen unless they have
>>an army of their own.
>
>The AI will bombard Armies with Bombers. If the Army gets weak enough the AI
>will then attack with ground units which will probably kill the Army.

It isn't perfect, which is good, because the AI shouldn't leave the
army alone. Again, I'd like to see the AI made smarter about engaging
armies.

The AI isn't bad, it just has a judgement problem about armies. And
large stacks too -- I've seen the AI pass by a huge stack of my
cavalry (combined with other units, but no army), letting each of them
take its zone of control shot, in order to engage something past them.
And that let me counterattack on my turn, shredding them.

An army in place really messes up the AI's attack.

The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
them effectively.
--
*-__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?)

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:18:52 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

> It is a smart tactic, and the effectiveness of army pillaging seemed
>balanced -- except for the lack of AI response. I'd like to see the
>AI get smarter about killing armies, rather than not use the tactic.
>
> As it is -- and this applies in any version of civ3 -- army
>pillaging is a very effective way to attack.

They do attack eventually if you destroy enough stuff or lose enough
hit points from bombardment. They wait to long and don't hit the army
hard enough to matter though.

> The vulnerability of the capital is an issue. I like having
>capitals be on the coast, so that cutting road nets alone won't kill
>the trade net. Nuking an inland capital wrecks all the roads, and
>while the AI can do it back to you, I try to make my capital on the
>coast.

I love wiping out the road net around the capital. Whenever I am up
agains't a tough opponent I use this as means to weaken them.

 

[alex]

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

"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...

> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
> them effectively.

Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
_disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
on that continent though).

Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:37:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...
>
>> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
>> them effectively.
>
>Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
>a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
>_disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
>on that continent though).
>
>Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?

Maybe you are right. I am not sure I recall seeing any armies in
Conquest. I often get more than I ever did in PTW and yet I never see
the AI with one.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:28:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:37:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
>>> them effectively.
>>
>>Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
>>a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
>>_disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
>>on that continent though).
>>
>>Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?
>
>Maybe you are right. I am not sure I recall seeing any armies in
>Conquest. I often get more than I ever did in PTW and yet I never see
>the AI with one.

I've seen them, I've noticed them get military great leaders too. I
just don't know what they do with them, because they don't seem to
survive long.

Several of the Conquests scenarios give the AI armies, and yet I've
not run into them head to head in combat. That should happen, right,
if the AI is using the armies effectively?

Maybe to test this, make a scenario where the AI has bunches of
pre-existing armies and a military academy, and see if they do
anything with them?


--
*-__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?)

"alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:S5ynd.19962$zx1.913@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...
>
>> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
>> them effectively.
>
> Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
> a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
> _disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
> on that continent though).
>
> Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?

C3C ai never builds armies. It is one of remaining bugs that ruins the game.
When they added the extra movement point to armies, the ai wasn't updated to
know how to deal with it. So even giving them armies in scenarios doesn't do
much good unless you fill them for the ai.

 

[Guest]

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

>
> I've seen them, I've noticed them get military great leaders too. I
> just don't know what they do with them, because they don't seem to
> survive long.
>
> Several of the Conquests scenarios give the AI armies, and yet I've
> not run into them head to head in combat. That should happen, right,
> if the AI is using the armies effectively?
>

I have seen Hannibal, which is an Army that Carthage starts with in Rise of
Rome scenario take out the Egyptians. But that army had a really wierd
composition, swordman, a spearman and one cavalry.

data64

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:hhkup0tch607hprj7knnvcm6344v8k6a8a@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:28:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:37:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
>>>news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
>>>> them effectively.
>>>
>>>Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
>>>a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
>>>_disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
>>>on that continent though).
>>>
>>>Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?
>>
>>Maybe you are right. I am not sure I recall seeing any armies in
>>Conquest. I often get more than I ever did in PTW and yet I never see
>>the AI with one.
>
> I've seen them, I've noticed them get military great leaders too. I
> just don't know what they do with them, because they don't seem to
> survive long.
>
> Several of the Conquests scenarios give the AI armies, and yet I've
> not run into them head to head in combat. That should happen, right,
> if the AI is using the armies effectively?
>
> Maybe to test this, make a scenario where the AI has bunches of
> pre-existing armies and a military academy, and see if they do
> anything with them?

Basically what happens is: If the AI adds a 1mp unit to the army 1st, it now
has a 2mp army and won't add another 1mp unit to it. If it adds a 2mp unit
1st, it has a 3mp army and won't add anything else unless it has a 3mp unit.
You have to *give* the ai armies though. It will *never* build an army with
a leader. That is probably a separate bug from the filling bug.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:28:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:37:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
>>> them effectively.
>>
>>Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
>>a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
>>_disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
>>on that continent though).
>>
>>Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?
>
>Maybe you are right. I am not sure I recall seeing any armies in
>Conquest. I often get more than I ever did in PTW and yet I never see
>the AI with one.

I have been playing RAR in C3C. I just cleaned out a civ with several
armies. I was attacked by a team of three armies in scenario.

They are there somewhere.


--
For what its worth.
Buck

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:31:21 GMT, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
>news:hhkup0tch607hprj7knnvcm6344v8k6a8a@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:28:29 -0500, P12 <nowhere@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:37:38 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:51atp0tqut0ci0mt6bnadgsc3l7k9fongi@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> The AI does get armies of its own sometimes, but tends not to use
>>>>> them effectively.
>>>>
>>>>Since I installed 1.22 c3c patch three months ago I did not encounter
>>>>a single AI army. Instead I witnessed on one occasion that my AI ally
>>>>_disbanded_ a newly created GML right on spot (they did not have a city
>>>>on that continent though).
>>>>
>>>>Is it just me, or handling of armies by AI is screwed up in v1.22?
>>>
>>>Maybe you are right. I am not sure I recall seeing any armies in
>>>Conquest. I often get more than I ever did in PTW and yet I never see
>>>the AI with one.
>>
>> I've seen them, I've noticed them get military great leaders too. I
>> just don't know what they do with them, because they don't seem to
>> survive long.
>>
>> Several of the Conquests scenarios give the AI armies, and yet I've
>> not run into them head to head in combat. That should happen, right,
>> if the AI is using the armies effectively?
>>
>> Maybe to test this, make a scenario where the AI has bunches of
>> pre-existing armies and a military academy, and see if they do
>> anything with them?
>
>Basically what happens is: If the AI adds a 1mp unit to the army 1st, it now
>has a 2mp army and won't add another 1mp unit to it. If it adds a 2mp unit
>1st, it has a 3mp army and won't add anything else unless it has a 3mp unit.
>You have to *give* the ai armies though. It will *never* build an army with
>a leader. That is probably a separate bug from the filling bug.

I'd noticed some odd mixes, and that would explain it. Does the AI
know how to build armies if it has the military academy?


Now, in PTW I've noticed the AI get a leader and make an army,
sometimes. But I'm not sure if they can do it in conquests.



--
*-__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?)

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:31:21 GMT, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>Basically what happens is: If the AI adds a 1mp unit to the army 1st, it now
>has a 2mp army and won't add another 1mp unit to it. If it adds a 2mp unit
>1st, it has a 3mp army and won't add anything else unless it has a 3mp unit.
>You have to *give* the ai armies though. It will *never* build an army with
>a leader. That is probably a separate bug from the filling bug.

I find myself building far more armies than I used to. Now that I
can't rush Great Wonders with them.