Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (
More info?)
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:56:38 GMT Mike Garcia
<mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu> wrote in message
<ch4rdp$c5k$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
> In article <17eaj0t59khcrup4pfvbnte98thsjvo12r@4ax.com>,
> Skinner1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Early in the game I want to expand as quickly as possible so I produce
> settlers as fast as I can. During REX the first building is a Barracks.
I build granaries if I have the technology, rather than barracks. Temples
too, if I need border expansion. Whether I build barracks at all during REX
depends upon how shield-productive my cities are: In the time it take for
them to grow by two citizens, each needs to produce 1 settler (30 shields) +
1 defender (a warrior will do: 10 shields) on average. Total 40 shields.
If I have an excess of 20 (militaristic) or 40 shields distributed between
all my cities, and I don't need temples, then I will build barracks in my
most shield-productive cities.
[...]
> During REX workers present a challenge. You want to have at least three
> improved tiles for each city. You also want a road net from your capital
> to each of your cities. You want to hook exactly one of each of the
> Luxuries and Resources available to you to you road net...
Strategic resources only matter if you're producing the units they make
available, which you're probably not, during REX. Luxuries are only
important during this phase if you have a happiness problem, which is not so
much an issue on lower playing levels. It's important to *secure* resources
(by building cities close to them), but not so important to exploit them
quickly.
> ...So you will need to produce more more Workers even though it will slow
> down Settler production. Cities without Grassland won't grow so I have
> them produce Workers instead of Settlers. I buy Workers every chance I
> get.
Absolutely. This is a crucial tip. Many players fail to recognise just how
valuable foreign workers are. Some even disband them! Compared to the
single native worker they would replace, two foreign workers acquired during
REX will save up to 500 or more gold in maintenance charges over the course
of the game, *plus* a valuable point of population that can now go into a
settler, *plus* ten shields, *plus* reducing the donor civ's ability to
develop his own terrain. At 25 gold or so they are an absolute steal! Even
when the price went up to around 125 in Conquests, they are still well worth
the cost.
> After REX, the first thing I build is a Temple (or Library if playing a
> Scientific civ) which will take some time and I'll pop rush to get them
> finished. Then I usually follow up with a Worker. I like having at least
> one Worker per city. Then Courthouse if corruption is bad, and I will pop
> rush to get it done. The most important building to me after the first
> cultural building is the Marketplace. Then the Library (or Temple).
It depends on what improvements are available, of course, but I tend to
favour temples even if I'm scientific and not religious. This may be
because I play at higher levels where I need all the help with happiness I
can get.
Like you, I love marketplaces. Libraries are the lowest priority, because
I'm not during any research at this time. I will build them for the
culture, if I've nothing else to build. I will also build them ahead of
barracks though, and ahead of courthouses in cities where the benefit of the
latter is minimal or in border cities under cultural pressure.
> A granary in one or two of the early cities is really nice if the city has
> bonus food that can be exploited while in Despotism. That city becomes a
> Settler/Worker pump until REX is over.
I prefer to put granaries in cities with normal (two food/turn) surplus.
Obviously what your aiming for is to increase the rate at which you are
gaining population. Consider the following table which shows the effect of
granaries at various growth rates. (You may need to switch to a fixed-width
font to see this clearly).
Surplus Turns to Grow Growth in 21 Turns Difference
Food w/o gran w gran w/o gran w gran
1 20 10 1 2 1
2 10 5 2 4 2
3 7 4 3 5 2
4 5 3 4 7 3
5 4 2 5 10 5
As you can see, there is not a lot of difference, in terms of growth rate
benefit, between putting a granary in a 3-surplus city and putting one in a
2-surplus city. In fact, it's marginally better in a 2-surplus city because
the benefit actually accrues in 20 rather than 21 turns. But the real
advantage is that you've got time to build your settler and perhaps other
things too. If you're growing every four turns, then you can do nothing but
build settlers. Any faster and you probably can't keep up, and your city
grows until it hits a cap, or, (if it has a water supply) the food box
expands, cancelling out the effect of the granary. or until you have to
create an entertainer.
[...]
> I'm guessing that you are talking about you capital here. I can see
> cranking out early scouts while waiting for the city to grow but Workers
> will delay the vital first Settler. The granary is a long range strategic
> choice, will the short term delay in Settler production be worth the long
> term gain? Early on I think walls are worthless but the barracks is very
> valuable.
In my experience (at deity), the result of building a granary before your
first settler is either disastrous (you end up with about 3 cities) or
excellent (10 or more). In the former case, you can restart, so I think
it's well worth it. I would expect this to be even more the case at lower
levels.
[...]
> Given a non-scientific civ my preferred order would be Temple,
> Marketplace, then Library. After REX, Barracks and Walls are low on my
> priority list unless I'm going to be producing units. I dislike producing
> Regulars.
I don't mind. I'm going to be replacing them anyway.
> Mike G
--
Daran
"I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but my chief duty is to
accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is
moved along, not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the
aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker." -- Helen Keller