Confession. I suck at Civ III. - Page 3

notyoueither · June 14, 2002, 04:41

Yes. Many people find that neglect of the military results in being swept under by the rising tide of an aggressive AI.

You can keep track of how you stand vis-a-vis your neibours with the military advisor. He will tell you if your forces suck (are very weak compared too) or are OK (are average compared too). Anything less than an average rating against a bordering civ will lead to trouble if you do not increase your forces quickly.

You cycle through the civs by clicking on the title bar at the top of the right hand frame. Incidentally, that is where you can find out what governments your opponents are in.

Good luck. With civ and your wife.

notyoueither · June 14, 2002, 05:09

PS. Where abouts in Edmonton?

DeepO · June 14, 2002, 08:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Simpleton
I think the games ok and I will play it more but I'm too busy(...)
It all depends on my wife.

Studying, playing Civ and having a wife? You got to respect that... I only try to combine working, studying and Civ... hard enough as it is

Just one remark to this discussion: as a builder, getting used to ancient warfare is hard in CivIII. However, coming from previous versions it can be fun to stay a builder, which might be a bit difficult at first, but still can be done. Just try to understand the aspect of culture in its smaller details, and everything will work out fine.

Yesterday, I won an emperor game without battling any other civ once, with a space victory. Got 7 or 8 cities flipping to me, so was only second in land area, but still it was nice to try to avoid all war, maintaining a comfortable lead through industrial and modern times. If only it was possible to build ancient wonders without great leaders, I wouldn't ever need to fight a war.

Oh, and having a moderate army in comparison to the warmonger AIs helps a lot in keeping the peace, but paying tribute is also a (bitter) solution. Just make sure the AIs never stay annoyed for more then a few turns, and surprise attacks are never a problem, even if you are military weak.

DeepO

reefer addict · June 14, 2002, 11:38

ive been lucky to win twice on emp. ive found you need a strong economy as fast as you can build it ( markets and banks as soon as you get them) its also very importany to keep your civ balanced. if you build all culture the ai will attack, if you build all military the ai will culture bomb you or just out tech you untill your military is an age behind. for me , balance is the key. cant wait to test you all in mp

Simpleton · June 14, 2002, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
PS. Where abouts in Edmonton?

Actually, I live in St. Albert but I think when I signed up for Apolyton I lived in Edmonton and just never changed it.
I used to live in Londonderry just down 145th ave from Londonderry mall.
Why do you ask are you from Edmonton?

PS: Thanks for the info on Civ3 I'll try some of the stuff you mentioned and keep practicing when I can.

Simpleton · June 14, 2002, 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

Studying, playing Civ and having a wife? You got to respect that... I only try to combine working, studying and Civ... hard enough as it is

Actually, she's pretty good about things but this weekend I promised her we'd do something together (movie, dinner, whatever). I'm actually looking forward to it.

Quote:

Yesterday, I won an emperor game without battling any other civ once, with a space victory. Got 7 or 8 cities flipping to me, so was only second in land area, but still it was nice to try to avoid all war, maintaining a comfortable lead through industrial and modern times. If only it was possible to build ancient wonders without great leaders, I wouldn't ever need to fight a war.

DeepO

I think part of the problem with my strategy is I prefer to play a non-aggressive style. I build a small army and concentrate on culture and tech. It seems more difficult to play this way in Civ3 which is ok. It's a different game right? Hence, different strategies are needed.

I'm actually pretty cool with sucking at Civ3 for now but I will take all the advice people have given and try it. It can't hurt right?

SlowwHand · June 14, 2002, 18:21

Another thing is that even though ICS should be easy, I have this perfectionist mind block going on.

Panag · June 14, 2002, 18:22

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Another thing is that even though ICS should be easy, I have this perfectionist mind block going on.

hi ,

nothing is perfect , ......

and it would be "dull" if it would be , ...

have a nice day

SlowwHand · June 14, 2002, 18:25

Things just fly right over that little pumpkin head of yours, don't they ?

notyoueither · June 14, 2002, 21:13

Perfect city placement (no overlap) and building improvements too early can have serious negative effects on your overall empire.

Personally, I favour city spacing of 3 tiles in general. This allows more cities in any given area and decreases corruption effects due to distance from capitol.

SpencerH · June 14, 2002, 22:44

Is the Rosalyn still there in Edmonton ?

notyoueither · June 14, 2002, 23:27

Yes. I'm in Edmonton.

SpencerH, the Rosslyn? Ohh boy, that brings back some memories. Me and my brother... oops too far OT perhaps...

Yes, it's still there. Recently renovated apparently.

DeepO · June 15, 2002, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Simpleton
I think part of the problem with my strategy is I prefer to play a non-aggressive style. I build a small army and concentrate on culture and tech. It seems more difficult to play this way in Civ3 which is ok. It's a different game right? Hence, different strategies are needed.

It surely is a different game when you want to keep military conflict to a minimum. You have to be very diplomatic, a big change from CivII where diplomacy was dead once you got the upperhand. Further, it is much easier to do it with certain civs, at certain map settings, I can't imagine playing a peace-game with the Japanese on a tiny map... although it has to be possible. Big continents, with Egypt, Persia, Greece or the Babs are, IMHO, the best to start with. Panganea is also fine, but if you 're unlucky to start with several war-civs in your neighbourhood you have to prepare for war.

Even if I plan in front how I'm going to play, a lot depends on the situation. In the game described above I could avoid all battles because I had the lower third of a big continent, while two other civs were battling for the upper part. I kept them polite, and they kept battling each other. When I saw one of the two was winning too much (keep explorers watching the front-line!) I gave the other some advantage, which could be an extra tech, some money, or a resource/luxury. I didn't go for a diplomatic victory, but I'm sure I was able to, as everybody was always nice to me (and I to them).

The current game, I'm even harder trying to experiment with peaceful victory, and conquest through culture flipping. I play the Babs, with the Zulu as immediate neighbor, the Persians beside them. Those two battle constantly, and whenever I see one of their cities razed, I immediately drop down a city on the available space -- even if it is just one tile of free space surrounded by foreign territory. I got some 7 city flips so far (1000AD), and it looks like there are another 20 or so cities which have a chance of flipping to me. Not one of my cities is in any danger of flipping, so as long as they'll keep friendly, I'll only grow. And I'm the largest already.

I couldn't avoid all conflict, though. Once I discovered another continent, I placed a city next to a free wine. Almost immediately, one of the Russian cities next to it flipped, which a little later turned out to contain a saltpeter source. I was amazed with the easy gaining of two key resources (cost: one settler and two spearmen), but so were the Germans. They declared war (even if they were polite), I got the Russians and English fighting them, and lost one spearman in the first attackwave. After sueing for peace (got 3 techs and an island city from the Germans, even if I only destroyed 2 or 3 attackers), The Russians attacked me. So I took one city with iron, and got the Germans and English to war for me.

As a result, everybody is battling each other, and all are relatively good mannered to me, as I didn't do much damage to them. Meanwhile, I'm building my infrastructure, and I'll either get a cultural, or a space race victory without any problem. I'm already 4 techs in front, before going to the modern age...

One last advice: my army is always just as big as I need them to be, but I always keep a quite large force of obsolete units running around. Plus the moment I got a new unit I build it and parade it in full view of every civ in my neighborhood. I try to fool the AI that I have a large force of modern units, when I have a large force of warriors and just one modern unit. I don't know whether the AI reasons like this, but it does keep them happy

DeepO

Radiation Zero · June 15, 2002, 17:24

Hmmm... looks like a big war with Aztec is inevitable.

Anyone want to give me some tips on how I should run this campaign?

SpencerH · June 15, 2002, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

I try to fool the AI that I have a large force of modern units, when I have a large force of warriors and just one modern unit. I don't know whether the AI reasons like this, but it does keep them happy

DeepO

An interesting theory, confusing a computer

DeepO · June 15, 2002, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
An interesting theory, confusing a computer

Oh, actually it's a thing I'd love to do in MP: without precise information, who is going to say that only the two cities they can see have infantry in them? I was only hoping the AI could as easily be confused as humans can be

DeepO

Panag · June 15, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

Oh, actually it's a thing I'd love to do in MP: without precise information, who is going to say that only the two cities they can see have infantry in them? I was only hoping the AI could as easily be confused as humans can be

DeepO

hi ,

not bad , but what happens when the AI plants a couple spy's , ..........

have a nice day

DeepO · June 15, 2002, 21:13

True... so it probably isn't always the right tactic. However, I do this from turn one, and without spies you only know the relative strength of a civ (in the F3 screen, purely based on numbers, not quality), and what you saw moving at your borders.

And, the advisor during negotiations does say things like "The Egyptians are afraid of your knights", so I figured I'd try to let them know my best unit in the hope it repels them. I don't know if this helps, but in general I can keep the AIs from attacking me without exuberant costs in tributes...it has to be something I do

DeepO

Capt Dizle · June 16, 2002, 01:37

Personally, I am not telling Luke anything.

DeepO · June 16, 2002, 08:43

I might miss a common expression, but who's Luke?

If you mean that you try to hide your military strength, of course that is the right thing to do when you want to attack someone. In that case, I'll try to keep my modern, offensive units far from borders, so the enemy doesn't know I got it. However, when you want to avoid attacks, showing off is better, no?

DeepO

Panag · June 16, 2002, 09:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO
I might miss a common expression, but who's Luke?

If you mean that you try to hide your military strength, of course that is the right thing to do when you want to attack someone. In that case, I'll try to keep my modern, offensive units far from borders, so the enemy doesn't know I got it. However, when you want to avoid attacks, showing off is better, no?

DeepO

hi ,

yes and no , example , you only have a small army , no problem , but you can use it to is max abilities if you can move them around fast , when all you city's are linked be railroad , ....

have a nice day

DeepO · June 16, 2002, 10:24

Of course, always keep a small, mobile force at hand, even when you want to stay peaceful. And, fortify units at places that prevent the enemy from reaching your cities in one turn from outside your borders, that's another obvious thing to do.

But in a peaceful game, I don't upgrade all my defensive units to the best around, in fact I only upgrade when I'm in a desperate situation (or want to go to war). Those warriors have the same effect...

In the game I finished last night (babs, nearly peaceful except a few skirmishes with Russians and Germans) over a third of my troops at the end of the game where warriors, and another third were spearman. I did build some 40 tanks, as I wasn't sure whether I wanted some action in the last turns, or not. Those peacegames can become boring...

So I finished diplomatic, with >6500 points on emperor (huge, 9(10?) civs, continents, 1605AD). It wasn't my best score, but for me it was a decent score, without major wars.

DeepO

Panag · June 16, 2002, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO
Of course, always keep a small, mobile force at hand, even when you want to stay peaceful. And, fortify units at places that prevent the enemy from reaching your cities in one turn from outside your borders, that's another obvious thing to do.

But in a peaceful game, I don't upgrade all my defensive units to the best around, in fact I only upgrade when I'm in a desperate situation (or want to go to war). Those warriors have the same effect...

In the game I finished last night (babs, nearly peaceful except a few skirmishes with Russians and Germans) over a third of my troops at the end of the game where warriors, and another third were spearman. I did build some 40 tanks, as I wasn't sure whether I wanted some action in the last turns, or not. Those peacegames can become boring...

So I finished diplomatic, with >6500 points on emperor (huge, 9(10?) civs, continents, 1605AD). It wasn't my best score, but for me it was a decent score, without major wars.

DeepO

hi ,

modernisation , ....

and old units lose a battle anyway , well okay , most of the time , so when you disband them in a city , its nice to get the shields , ...

have a nice day

Solver · June 16, 2002, 10:57

You can use old units for taking shots at weak units, still. I have sent 5 Longbowmen at a 1 HP Mech. Inf. till I beat it

.

Panag · June 16, 2002, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
You can use old units for taking shots at weak units, still. I have sent 5 Longbowmen at a 1 HP Mech. Inf. till I beat it

.

hi ,

okay , but for a number of X turns you had to pay these units , ....

have a nice day

Solver · June 16, 2002, 11:20

Yes, but I do prefer to keep older units. I can upgrade anything except Longbowmen. Swordsmen all die in Middle Ages, Cavalry remains useful more or less forever, and the Longbowmen... let them stay.

DeepO · June 16, 2002, 11:44

Am I the only one who keeps ancient troops un-upgraded? strange...
Of course, when I go to war in the ancient period, all warriors are upgraded to swordmen, but what would be the point if you don't plan on war? It only costs lots of money.

About disbanding obsolete units in newly conquered cities: I did that for a while. But, it doesn't net you much (2 shields for a warrior), and those obsolete units could be better spent on repressing resistors and fooling the AI you have a huge army. The only units I disband are captured catapults when I have cannons, and artillery when I have lots of bombers. They are of no use anyway, so avoid paying for them all those turns.

Of course, I only keep warriors when my army is weak to the largest military civ, once you get more units there is no need for them anymore. That's the time I'm disbanding core city defenders as well, or move them to the borders.

DeepO

SpencerH · June 16, 2002, 11:52

I upgrade all my units asap especially if I have Leonardo.

DeepO · June 16, 2002, 12:13

Why? If you don't use a unit, why pay for it? Especially when you can keep them as a reserve, and build new units when needed. How many times do you encounter a time in which all your core cities have built all improvements, and have nothing better to do then to build units? Setting them to wealth hardly is the best choice: you generate for every 40 shields 10 golds, while upgrading a unit costs 40(or 20 with Leo) per 10 shields... you loose 160 shields on wealth per gained 10 shields on a unit... hardly favorable odds.

I agree completely that there are situations where upgrading is a must, but why would it need to be a strict rule?

DeepO

Panag · June 16, 2002, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO
Why? If you don't use a unit, why pay for it? Especially when you can keep them as a reserve, and build new units when needed. How many times do you encounter a time in which all your core cities have built all improvements, and have nothing better to do then to build units? Setting them to wealth hardly is the best choice: you generate for every 40 shields 10 golds, while upgrading a unit costs 40(or 20 with Leo) per 10 shields... you loose 160 shields on wealth per gained 10 shields on a unit... hardly favorable odds.

I agree completely that there are situations where upgrading is a must, but why would it need to be a strict rule?

DeepO

hi ,

many times , ......

anyway , old units are not word to keep , ..

okay , one or two , for sentimental value maybe , but that is it , ..

have a nice day