The First Cheat-Strategies For Civ III: PtW

[Solver]

ToE - though I value this wonder much, I think it's a bit of an overkill to rush it by mobilization. However, Hoover Dam gives such an effect that you would do it - if you could.

Thinking here... can you sign a Peace Treaty with your ally the next turn and remain mobilized? Or does the mobilization return to Normal when you sign peace?

[punkbass2000]

I think you only get production bonuses when you build military units.

[Nikolai]

Yes and no, you get the bonus when building military units and city improvements. So I think this is a non-issue, but I'm not 100% sure.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Solver
Another one: using Mobilization for Wonders.

Say, I'm having a race for a certain Wonder with another Civ, and I really really want it first. A good example could be the Hoover Dam. So, I declare war on my ally and switch to War-Time mobilization. The city will continue to build the Wonder, and I will receive a pretty strong production bonus.

Same goes for building Spaceship during the Space Race.

Possible solution: restrict Wonders during mobilization?

OK, I know Firaxians are reading this thread, so posts here will be coming to their attention.

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
I'm with Solver here. Using mobilization to rush wonders (esp. Hoover, maybe ToE) is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Solver
ToE - though I value this wonder much, I think it's a bit of an overkill to rush it by mobilization. However, Hoover Dam gives such an effect that you would do it - if you could.

Thinking here... can you sign a Peace Treaty with your ally the next turn and remain mobilized? Or does the mobilization return to Normal when you sign peace?

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I think you only get production bonuses when you build military units.

Originally posted by Nikolai
Yes and no, you get the bonus when building military units and city improvements. So I think this is a non-issue, but I'm not 100% sure.

It's all a non-issue. Even under mobilization, no shield bonus is given towards any wonder, any spaceship parts, or any city improvement / building at all (military or otherwise). The only cities that enjoy a shield bonus are those cities that are producing military units, and even then, with certain exceptions.

After seeing many contradictory posts in the forums, I did an extensive analysis of mobilization. You can see the results here.

Catt

[Lucilla]

Thanks for the clarification, Catt

[punkbass2000]

It's nice to know I was right

[Nikolai]

Ahem....don't be too selfish now...I was also right!


Just kidding, but don't you run an presidential campaign now, OK?

[Solver]

Uhmm Catt, reading it now, and hope you're right. I just thought that mobilization gives bonus shields everywhere, no matter what is being built, but only allows units. Seems I was wrong.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Solver
Uhmm Catt, reading it now, and hope you're right. I just thought that mobilization gives bonus shields everywhere, no matter what is being built, but only allows units. Seems I was wrong.

hi ,

only war-related stuff , however if you are building a wonder , wait a turn and the go into "wartime" then you get a shield bonus , .........

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Solver
Hehe, yeah . Just that it works under all Windows version, Windows 9x included.

BTW, I once was called to repair a PC without a Windows key... took two hours, but I suffered hard, since I use it all the time.

hi ,

tip ; next time reboot in "save mode" , .......

have a nice day

[Catt]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

only war-related stuff , however if you are building a wonder , wait a turn and the go into "wartime" then you get a shield bonus , .........

have a nice day

Panag, you did't read my first post -- the one Solver is responding to. You do not get a shield bonus on anything but certain military units -- no shield bonus on any city improvement, great wonder, or small wonder. After seeing many contradictory posts, I tested mobilization and its effects -- see the full results here.

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Solver
Uhmm Catt, reading it now, and hope you're right. I just thought that mobilization gives bonus shields everywhere, no matter what is being built, but only allows units. Seems I was wrong.

Solver, I've been wrong about Civ 3 details more times than I can count -- that's what the forums are for -- learning a little bit more .

After seeing a bunch of contradictory information about mobilization, I ran some tests. You can do the same if you want to check my work. The bulk of it can be done by going into the editor and making the following changes: (1) give the human player all technologies, and start him in a democracy; (2) give the human player 2 settlers, 2 infantry, an explorer, and a leader; (3) eliminate the resource requirements / building requirements for all units / city improvements / wonders; (4) give the human player 1000+ gold. Start a game! I chose to start on a huge map, only one other civ, on an archipelago with no barbarians -- my goal was simply to be able to build an inland and a coastal city as quickly as possible, without having to deal with barbarians / enemies. The explorer lets you quickly find the coast, and archipelago assures you that it won't be far. (In the three or so tries to run the tests -- each time finding a flaw in my editor settings -- I never had to move more than 2 spaces to build a city on the coast).

Once you have your cities, set them to building a civilian improvement (say, a temple) and a military unit (say, an infantry) -- you can vary this at your will of course. **Save the game.** After the save, mobilize. Look at the two city screens -- the civilian project (even if it was a wonder) does not generate extra shields, the military unit project does. Now click on the current build (as if you wanted to change the build) -- do this from the city screen rather than shift-right-clicking from the map. First of all, you will see all of the possible projects under a mobilized economy -- no civilian projects! Second of all, select different items and watch what happens to the tiles in the city screen. Certain, but not all, "military" units generate a shield bonus. None of the "military" buildings / wonders generates a shield bonus even though you can build them during your mobilization.

Reload the saved game. Before going into mobilization, use the leader to rush build the Apollo Program small wonder. Proceed into mobilization. Confirm that you can build spaceship parts but that you get no shield bonus.

Reload the saved game. Rush build the Military Academy. Proceed into mobilization. Confirm that you can build armies but that you get no shield bonus.

If I remember correctly, every single city improvement and wonder (great and small) that you can build during a mobilization has the "Militaristic" flag checked in the editor -- except the United Nations. I can only assume that the player is allowed to build the United Nations as a game balance issue (although one can't build the Apollo Program . . . )

I used old saved games to test how to get out of mobilization (some form of peace) -- but still managed to screw that up through a fluke.

In any event, I'm pretty sure I'm right, but would happily encourage a double-check from anyone.

Catt

[Solver]

Thanks for showing how you did it Catt.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Catt


Panag, you did't read my first post -- the one Solver is responding to. You do not get a shield bonus on anything but certain military units -- no shield bonus on any city improvement, great wonder, or small wonder. After seeing many contradictory posts, I tested mobilization and its effects -- see the full results here.

Catt

hi ,

hmm , nice thread , did you try to mobilize during a golden age , ......that really rock's , ....

have a nice day

[DrFell]

Just came up with a solution to the republic war weariness exploit, it's very simple and effective.

All you need to do is keep the war weariness counter at 0 for a republic/democracy when war is declared. The counter stays frozen at 0 war weariness until the republic player actually captures one of his opponent's cities, at which point it starts going up as normal. If the player retakes one of his own cities captured by his opponent, the war weariness is still not triggered. This war weariness immunity is only possible if the republic has war declared upon them by another civilization, and not if the republic player is the aggressor.

This solution is nearly ideal as the 'telephone war' problem is solved, and it still encourages the republican/democratic player to fight purely defensive wars and not to take the war to their opponent's territory. I'd personally love to see this included in PTW.

Any thoughts?

[star mouse]

Exploit: When a city changes hands, the unhappiness generated by pop-rushing and drafting is halved. Two players could swap the same city three or four times to reduce rampant misery to a manageable level.

Fix: Have 1 unhappiness variable for each civ. When a city swaps back, the unhappiness for the original civ is restored, as if the civ never changed hands.

When adding unhappiness caused by drafting or pop-rushing, add 1 "unhappiness" to the variable for the current civ, and 1/2 "unhappiness" for all the others.

[gentleriser]

Originally posted by XarXo
Yes, "Building Pact" can't be seen as a cheat. I believe that I missed the thread title. It should be: "Interesting Strategies".

Not a cheat, but a worthwhile addition to the game, and something that should be added to the AI in even a regular game: you can make deals for alliances, luxuries etc, but why not services?

Suppose I discover Steam Engine long before everyone else. I'd hate to give that technology to AI civs too soon. But perhaps I could offer in negotiations something like: "You pay 12 gold/turn for 20 turns (or whatever other cost) and I connect your city A to city B, pledging X number of workers to the project."
Presto, they get a railroad, I get my workers back when its done.

[Reptilicus]

Instead of everyone doing everything on their turn, each turn is divided into two "phases." First is the domestic, where all players can set all building prod., move all workers within borders, set treaties, and so on simultaneously. All shields, luxuries, etc., are added at the end of the phase. The second phase is military, where it goes turn to turn and only military units and workers outside of borders can move.

Hopefully this could solve many problems, mainly luxury sharing and the like.

[sprucemoose3311]

I think the Hebrews should have been one of the original civs in civ3. They helped shape early history. The Hebrew culture is responsible for helping in the creation of the Quran (which started circulating around 625 AD; it was part culture; part reaction to Hebrews; heavily influenced by Hebrew scripture) and Christianity.

Their ruler could be solomon (Built great temples, falsly credited with scipture found in Bible) or David (first great ruler, even if he didnt build great cities as archeological evidence- which means fragments of pottery- suggests) Both rulers enjoyed rule over roughly the same area.

they could be religious and expansionist/militaristic

One more note: the Hebrew culture has outlasted most other cultures in the world. They may possibly be the most infuential culture in the world (next to the Greeks).

[sprucemoose3311]

one other thing about the Hebrews, they ruled over egypt for a short while, the Hyksos (i think i spelled it right) ruled over Egypt at the time of joseph. at the end of their reign, the Jews numbers were extremely high. The hebrews were gaining wealth and stregnth. The new pharoahs were afraid of the power they commanded so they imposed strict laws on Hebrews. The Hebrews were never slaves.

Also, Alexander the Great brought 10,000 Jews to live in Alexandria. Alexandria helped make Northern Africa the center of Judaism and Christianity especially.


Its funny im not religious at all and i know more than most people who go to church, oh well whatever.

[Lucilla]

sprucemoose3311,

I think this is the wrong thread for this discussion....

[OPD]

backstabbing wont be that much of a problem as after only a few games they would have a permanent reputation as a backstabber however buddies of-line or in chat rooms may work together from the start everytime they play

[bad0cat]

I HAVE RETURNED TO THE APOLYTON BOARDS!
(....crickets chirping....)


OK, seriously -

Backstabbing

Who would want to play a game without it? My god that would be more boring than a "This Old House" marathon.

Here are my biggest multiplayer concerns:


1) Game has got to be simplified enough on the micromangament side so that each game doesn't last 14 years but they can't over simplify it because then you have SimWarcraft (yes, yes this has nothing to do with strategy or cheats but I thought I'd throw it in anyhoo)

2) Unit trading MUST be integrated. I can't over-emphasize how important this is.

3) If at all possible, I would like to see Firaxis do something about the old "save game, quit, open game in editor" trick which was so widely abused in CTP and CTPII multiplayer. (I'm not entirely sure you can open a saved CIVIII game with an editor like you could in CTP...can you?)

4) For multiplayer, I think nukes need to be reworked as far as effects, cost, and functionality. I can already see this scenario playing out way too often:

-build butt loads of ICBMS

-rush tech to Intergrated Defense

-without warning launch a full scale strike on the same
turn you complete SDI wonder (use a leader to rush
build if possible), thus taking out your closest
opponent (or closest 2....or 3)

-procede with ease to the space race victory

Sure this would mean a nasty reprisal from your opponents but you've got SDI so you would come out on top 99% of the time.

Don't get me wrong - I love the nuclear aspect of CIV but this seems like a can't-lose strategy in multiplayer that virtually everyone will end up trying for. Thoughts?


Alright, that's enough for now.

[XarXo]

In this Nuclear Strategy something important rised. The problem that the AI "thinks" that the planet where the game occurs is "its" planet. So a nuclear war really "affects it". But a human player is totally cold with this, this is the GREAT mistake.

[Oerdin]

I see little Firaxis can do to prevent what bad0cat described. Maybe they could make SDI less effective by giving it a percent chance to shoot down an incoming missle but even that will not end the use of pre-imptive nuclear strikes. Realistically the only thing a target can do is spread his units out as widely as possible so that all of them don't get destroyed in the first attack.

Since we're alreay on the topic of nukes I'd like to bring up the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). In CTP2 you could have your nukes pretargeted at your enemies cities so that if he nukes you on his turn you still get to fire off your missles at him. A similiar MAD function in Civ3 would prompt a more realistic use of nukes.

[bad0cat]

In this Nuclear Strategy something important rised. The problem that the AI "thinks" that the planet where the game occurs is "its" planet. So a nuclear war really "affects it". But a human player is totally cold with this, this is the GREAT mistake.

I am not sure what you mean... are you saying that nukes are good the way they are right now?

If so, I would have to disagree. I think there needs to be some more catastrophic events if there is a global exchange of nukes. Right now its just a handful of poluted tiles and some limited climate changing.

A more realistic affect would be a "nuclear winter" type chain of events where massive amounts of the world map are turned to tundra and polution occurs on an equally global scale, then this is later followed by some receding shorelines (and thus, sinking cities).

That would force humans to think more long-term when it comes to using nukes in MP. Right now nukes seem like a perfecetly viable military option - I wouldn't even think twice about using them in a MP game, ESPECIALLy if I thought I could build the SDI wonder before anyone else.

[bad0cat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I see little Firaxis can do to prevent what bad0cat described. Maybe they could make SDI less effective by giving it a percent chance to shoot down an incoming missle but even that will not end the use of pre-imptive nuclear strikes. Realistically the only thing a target can do is spread his units out as widely as possible so that all of them don't get destroyed in the first attack.

Since we're alreay on the topic of nukes I'd like to bring up the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). In CTP2 you could have your nukes pretargeted at your enemies cities so that if he nukes you on his turn you still get to fire off your missles at him. A similiar MAD function in Civ3 would prompt a more realistic use of nukes.

Exactly right. The ability to pre-target should be added and I think large scale exchanges of nukes should result in catastrophic polution/climate change for the *entire world* This would make nukes a serious issue in the late game, as it should be.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by bad0cat


I am not sure what you mean... are you saying that nukes are good the way they are right now?

If so, I would have to disagree. I think there needs to be some more catastrophic events if there is a global exchange of nukes. Right now its just a handful of poluted tiles and some limited climate changing.

A more realistic affect would be a "nuclear winter" type chain of events where massive amounts of the world map are turned to tundra and polution occurs on an equally global scale, then this is later followed by some receding shorelines (and thus, sinking cities).

That would force humans to think more long-term when it comes to using nukes in MP. Right now nukes seem like a perfecetly viable military option - I wouldn't even think twice about using them in a MP game, ESPECIALLy if I thought I could build the SDI wonder before anyone else.

That's is. For a human player use nukes doesn't matter, is only a game, but AI has a programation that says "your planet will disappear, be careful, don't use them". The solution for this is that the AI player *must* use nuclear weapons when a human player does it. As cold as a human one. But well, this should be in the personality of each leader (militaristic: nuke'm all! religious: nuke'm all, in the name of God )...

[bad0cat]

Originally posted by XarXo


(militaristic: nuke'm all! religious: nuke'm all, in the name of God )...

[noxianyork]

How about giving players the option of starting near one another? Like on the same continent or being geographically clustered.

noxian