2 newb questions about conquest

techbota · January 11, 2004, 15:46

1st Is it just me or is there a problem getting saltpeter in conquest. Ive so far played 4 games and none of the times have I gotten saltpeter in my areas. Which left me to trading my scientific advances to build a military.

2nd I usually dont like downloading beta patches. Is the patch for conquest essential or should I wait for the final version????

Theseus · January 11, 2004, 15:54

Resource distribution is problematic in C3C, and evidently might be a bug related to volcanos. I think it is being looked at for the patch.

techbota · January 11, 2004, 16:37

Kewl what about my patch question?

Rhothaerill · January 11, 2004, 16:57

I'd go ahead and download the patch. The original release had two major bugs including broken corruption and a double gpt bug that both unbalance the game. The gpt bug seems to be fixed and the corruption is better, though still being worked on.

vmxa1 · January 11, 2004, 20:10

Yes the 1.12 patch is important. Any final patch will have some form of 1.12 imbeded.

The gpt fix will make the game more playable. At levels above Demi it is so hard with that bug. The FP issue is a mixed bag and who knows how it will endup, but it will be closer to 1.12 than 1.00.

So to me that means continuity with 1.12 more so than 1.00.
I held off of 1.13 as a new patch was due.

Theseus · January 11, 2004, 20:34

vmxa1, check your PMs.

techbota · January 12, 2004, 15:51

Well installed it last night. Didnt notice anything major. Although there was a blank spot in the advisor window but it went away.

You know I think it would be nice if there was a way to see what one AI's attititude towards another is. So you might be able to guesstimate when a civ would go to war with a different one.

Also what can I do to get points. I have the second largest land mass owned. The highest poputlation and the top in culture. But Russia has 300 more points than me.

me 1107
Russia 1411

I have been kicking butt and taking names but it doesnt seem to effect my score at all. I took 8 german cities in like 5 turns and I dont think I got one point for it???????

steven8r · January 12, 2004, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by techbota
Well installed it last night. Didnt notice anything major. Although there was a blank spot in the advisor window but it went away.

You know I think it would be nice if there was a way to see what one AI's attititude towards another is. So you might be able to guesstimate when a civ would go to war with a different one.

Also what can I do to get points. I have the second largest land mass owned. The highest poputlation and the top in culture. But Russia has 300 more points than me.

me 1107
Russia 1411

I have been kicking butt and taking names but it doesnt seem to effect my score at all. I took 8 german cities in like 5 turns and I dont think I got one point for it???????

Re: AI attitudes, They will ALL go to war w/ one another for the right price. You might check the F4 screen and the 'Trades' tab to see if 2 AI's are trading. If one goes to war w/ another, they will lose that trade. I think that affects their 'willingness' to war.

Re: Score, don't worry about maintaining a high score throuout the game (unless you just really really want to or if you have nothing else to do). When you win the game, you will get a 'bonus' that will put you ahead of anyone. I think there is another thread here on Apolyton that asks about score and it has a link to a CFC score chart or something. (I haven't checked it out because I don't wory about score--only bettering my playstyle.)

Steven

steven8r · January 12, 2004, 17:03

Oh, and yes, there is a noticeable resource scarcity. I think I've only had Saltpeter in 1 or 2 games I've played so far. (I was just amazed that in my most recent game I actually had Coal AND Rubber! Woo Hoo!)

With unpatched C3C, the Corruption thing isn't too bad. But the gpt bug can create AI's w/ more than 10k gold in the bank. They become hard to beat when they're that wealthy.

Steven

Plotinus · January 12, 2004, 22:52

I believe I'm right in saying that the AIs don't have attitudes to each other - they cannot annoy or please each other. They only have attitudes to the player. This is something I'd like to see changed in the future, to make international diplomacy that much richer.

vmxa1 · January 13, 2004, 00:14

Not sure what it is worth, but the PTW strat guide says that the AI has no special treatment of the human and only detects the other civs for the purpose of trades.
IOW it does not really know you form another AI.

techbota · January 13, 2004, 13:35

steven8r

What do you mean dont worry about score???
So far this has been the only way I can win!!!

Obviously I suck to too bad to win any other way and im only playing on the next level up from the bottom!!!

Start Of A Rant

My game lasted just under 24 hours!#@$#%

It takes me 4 days to finish the damn thing....god im so pissed at it.

Another thing that is BUGGIN me is that I did better on almost every thing in that game the only thing I came in second place was I had a slightly smaller area of owned land mass. And I still get the loser screen! God that screen pisses me off.

Listen to this. Before I said I was at like
me 1107
Russia 1411
score wise

Well last night the russians asked for a war against the germans. I went over there and captured 10 cities like in 3 turns. THe russians destroyed one and took the last one.

The score barely budged on both sides

Then I got into it with the Ottomans and took out over half there civ. (like 8 cities) shortly after the 2050 mark hits. I lose!!!!! The score being something like
me 1217
Russia 1604

Now if the name of the game is conquest, then when you conquer cities why dont you get points??? This to me is very important because I am not good enough yet to win by other means!!!!

steven8r · January 13, 2004, 14:24

techbota,

If you're getting to the 2050 point and haven't won by then, I'm not sure that score will matter.

Domination Victory - you need 66% of the landmass. Take-over more land quicker.

Cultural Victory - you need 100k empire-wide Culture or 20k one city Culture AND have to have at least twice the Culture of your nearest rival. Build more Wonders.

Conquest Victory - wipe-out everyone else. Start wars quicker.

Diplomatic Victory - Build the UN first and be REAL nice to everyone else (at least 1/2 of the remaining civs). I think it is possible to not build the UN and still get the votes--but dificult.

Space Race Victory - Build your spaceship quicker.

It seems that just relying on Score at the end of the game is extremely inefficient. If you achieve any of the above Victory conditions, your Score will be higher than any of the AI's in the game. The only time that I even made it to the 2050 deadline was in my very first game. Soon after, I discovered Apolyton and learned from the collective experiences of its members. I've either won or lost much quicker since.

Now, granted, it's very easy to say the above, but MUCH more difficult to achieve the above.

Short answer: Read through the Strat Forum and find ways to enhance your game.

Long answer: Post some early game saves in the Strat Forum and let some Members comment/critique your playstyle and suggest improvements to your game. Get specific, almost turn-by-turn suggestions.

Don't overlook the extreme value of REX. (Rapid Expansion and eXploration--at least I think that's what it means.) Your power in Civ comes from your cities. The more cities you have, the more power you get (production, gold, AND research). Also early knowledge of the map and contact w/ other civs helps you immensely.

It sounds daunting at first, but w/ just a little research and minimal effort, your games will soon be decided long before the year 2050.

'Poly is indispensible to learning the whole 'Civ Experience'. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step--Chinese Proverb" Since you are a member, you've already taken the first step to bettering your game. Just continue to follow along this path and you will soon become the "Evil Warmonger/Builder/Diplomatic Lord of All You Behold (on your computerscreen anyways)

Improve your game. The score will follow.

Steven

techbota · January 13, 2004, 14:58

This is like my 15th game and I have went to 2050 on all of them or lost early. Im getting alittle better .

I try to follow the forums but alot of times there talking in terms and abreviations and as a newb its pretty hard to follow. Im not sure how much more I can expand. Im building settlers as fast as possible and I had the most land mass up until the end. I just wasnt anywhere's near 66%
(I had to have like 30 cities in my game last night)

As for tech I go for literature right away and then I only go for required techs I usually keep up or just slightly ahead but usually I get muscled out of techs early by more powerful civs bullying me around.

Their always annoyed and if I say no they usually go right to war with me.

even last nights game I was top in population but was only at 90,000 no where near the 130,000 requirement.

I was top at culture still not even close to victory in it.

I mean when almost eveything has a temple,courthouse,library, and coloseum. What more can you do to get a cultural victory????? Only one city from another civ flipped to me. Which was bull because they had all kinds of BS small fries next to my metropolisis and NOTHING.

God its frustrating.

Rhothaerill · January 13, 2004, 15:03

Hang in there techbota.

If I might suggest it, try posting a save in the strategy forum (or here). There are many people who would be more than willing to deconstruct your saves and give specifically tailored advice (vmxa1 is one of the best

)

Also, try reading some of the thread about the early game from here. They are somewhat dated, but still have a lot of good advice for beginning a game.

steven8r · January 13, 2004, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by techbota
I try to follow the forums but alot of times there talking in terms and abreviations and as a newb its pretty hard to follow.... God its frustrating.

I sincerely feel your pain.

The amount of abbreviations and acronyms can seem daunting at times. The best solution is just what Rhothaerill suggests: Post a save and ask.

Don't be afraid to ask questions--any questions (even if you think they might be stupid.) When in doubt, just start a thread. Someone will answer your question.

I've found the folks here at 'Poly are a very understanding lot. I don't think any of us were born knowing much about Civ. We too, (each and every one) were all new to the game and/or Forum at one point. I can't speak for others, but I sure remember what it was like to be a 'newbie' (in fact, I'm not sure that I don't still consider myself one--There's always someone that (at least to appearances) knows more than I about things.)

The vast amount of what I know about the game has come from the Forums, the second (and far less) amount comes from actually playing.

Keep your chin up and soldier on!

Steven

vmxa1 · January 13, 2004, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by techbota
Another thing that is BUGGIN me is that I did better on almost every thing in that game the only thing I came in second place was I had a slightly smaller area of owned land mass. And I still get the loser screen! God that screen pisses me off.

Listen to this. Before I said I was at like
me 1107
Russia 1411
score wise

Well last night the russians asked for a war against the germans. I went over there and captured 10 cities like in 3 turns. THe russians destroyed one and took the last one.

The score barely budged on both sides

Then I got into it with the Ottomans and took out over half there civ. (like 8 cities) shortly after the 2050 mark hits. I lose!!!!! The score being something like
me 1217
Russia 1604

Now if the name of the game is conquest, then when you conquer cities why dont you get points??? This to me is very important because I am not good enough yet to win by other means!!!!

Look at it as a baseball season. If you had a good day and went 3 for 5 and your avg was 295 with 650 at bats, the day would have little effect.

If you had 50 at bats, then it would have a big effect. To see an impact on the score it will take either a lot of time with small increases or a massive increase.

So if you are looking at 2030 and are down 200 points, you have a problem. The culture from all the cities will be hard to offest in so short of time as it must be avg over the whole game.

If Russia was in front, you would have been better off to take cities from them. Raze or capture wonder cities and core cities with 1000 year old temples. That would slow their score.

vmxa1 · January 13, 2004, 17:49

techbota your game sounds a lot better than a few that have come through here, so I would say you can do it.

I did a run, well a few, with Msade and she finally won. She would email her game directly to me, so if you would want to do that it is no problem.

Send me a PM and will reply with my address. I would suggest sending a 4000bc with no move taken. Play forward to some point and send that one. I would think no more than 50 turns to start.

This will not be a case of making maximum out of civ, just an attempt to use reasonable tactics. IOW we will not do micromanaging to the nth degree, but enough to beat the game at Monarch or lower.

Rhothaerill thanks for support and I will get that check right away.

vmxa1 · January 13, 2004, 17:53

Rhothaerill, Ducki and Mountain Sage used personal threads in the strat forum to document their games and get feedback from lot of players and moved up to high levels of play and skill.

So that as was mentioned is another good way to approach learning. Just create a new thread and post a save and maybe a screen shot. Actually you can search back to see some of those games and maybe glean all you need.

Anyway I just like to see people get something out of the game.

Theseus · January 13, 2004, 21:06

techbota, you sound like you have a better handle on the game than many.

Come to the Strat forum, my friend, and we will make you a champ.

Xorbon · January 13, 2004, 21:09

Techbota:

Nobody else has mentioned it, so I will. (I don't know if you already know this or not, but...) Unlike earlier versions of Civilization, points are accumulated throughout the game. That is, each turn a small number of points is added to your total based on your civ's level at that particular time. You get points for size of your empire, population, and happiness, among other factors. Because points are added each turn, the longer you have a civ which generates a lot of points, the more points you'll get added to your total. What this means is if you have a huge, happy empire for a large part of the early game, but then lose half of your cities, you still get credit for the accumulated points you've already gotten. On the other hand, if you wait too long to conquer half the world, you won't get as many points as you would if you had done that earlier.

Like I said, I don't know if you already knew this. If you did, then I just wasted wear and tear on my fingers & keyboard.

Plotinus · January 13, 2004, 21:57

What Xorbon said. I was about to say exactly that but he beat me to it. Taking cities etc from other civilisations won't reduce their score, it will simply hamper their ability to increase it further.

I think it's a good system - it cuts out the old "whack up the luxury slider to maximum just before conquering the world" tactic I used in Civ1 to maximise my score (happy citizens counted extra, and it only looked at how many you had on the final turn).

Incidentally, I hate all acronyms and strive not to use them. How long does it take to type something in full, after all? Fight text-speak in all its manifestations! Grrrrr!

YC4B4U · January 13, 2004, 23:05

I love this:

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Look at it as a baseball season. If you had a good day and went 3 for 5 and your avg was 295 with 650 at bats, the day would have little effect.

If you had 50 at bats, then it would have a big effect. To see an impact on the score it will take either a lot of time with small increases or a massive increase.

For those of us that don't know baseball could you convert this to another "better" sport - say Cricket.

SirOsis · January 14, 2004, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by YC4B4U
For those of us that don't know baseball could you convert this to another "better" sport - say Cricket.

Watching either sport will result in

so go play civ instead.

YC4B4U · January 14, 2004, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by SirOsis

Watching either sport will result in

so go play civ instead.

Not instead - at the same time!

MrWhereItsAt · January 14, 2004, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by YC4B4U
I love this:

For those of us that don't know baseball could you convert this to another "better" sport - say Cricket.

Ummm.... haven't a clue how baseball works, but I HAVE been learning American Football.

Now to cricket:

Let's say in a one-dayer NZ's run rate average after their innings was on (a standard for NZ

) 5.4 per over. Now if Oz is at 4 per over in the last 3 overs and then hits out for 50 runs in the last 3 it is outstanding, but not enough to win by.

However if you look at the ICC rankings you then realise that this is a bit of an abberration and nothing to worry about.

Will this do?

Furthermore, with score in Civ3 it makes little difference unless you happen to not win by one of the other ways, and if you are consistently having the game decided on points alone you should look at changing things.

vmxa1 · January 14, 2004, 03:35

YC4B4U

I don't think you need to know anything about baseball. The point is an average is made with addding up all of the previous totals and dividing it by something. The larger the incidents being add the harder it is to affect the average.

So in Civ the turn score is added each turn. The longer the game goes the less impact the score of a given day will have. That is why grabbing a dozen cities with no culture is not going to do much. If they get some culture it will increase the turn total by a bit, but with 540 turns by year 2050, well you get the picture.

MrWhereItsAt · January 14, 2004, 05:44

Alright, how about this then -

Daniel Vettori's batting average was until very recently 16.09 in tests. Then for some of the latest tests he got a 55, a 60, a 48no and a 137no. These are great scores, but increases his average to only 20.47. If he had been making scores a little lower than the lowest of these great tallies his whole pro career and had made none of these outstanding runs then he would be better off with his average and total scores.

But then he'd be solid, and solidly dull.

The rush at the end is massive fun, but it won't do much for your score no matter WHAT you accomplish.

steven8r · January 14, 2004, 13:02

techbota,

I'm not trying to 'toot my own horn', but Here's a game I just posted and I've already gotten lots of good suggestions/help in just a very short time.
Edit: In just over an hour, I got-back 6 useful posts. /Edit
(Again, I wish to emphasize the responses--specific suggestions on a specific game, not my post--it's just the most recent one I could think of)

Or, for some more generalized info, check-out Ducki's Thread in the Strat Forum, "Ducki Does C3C at Emperor"

The Forum is an awesome tool. Don't be afraid to use it!

Steven

techbota · January 14, 2004, 13:57

Ok I started a game last night. I have a zip folder that is around 1 mb that has about 7 saves throughout. Please take a look and tell me what you think. and what I should do. I will also post it in strategy.

www.utinsomniac.com/civ/civsaves.zip