Most people will give you a list of the things they feel would make the Civ3 game playing experience more enjoyable.

My personal list included all sorts of things ranging from realistic bombardment engagements all the way to a better set of naval unit abilities just to name a few.

After a little self inspection, I found that all these wants and needs were of almost no value if I did not focus in on learning how to play the first 50 to 100 turns of the game as if these were all that really mattered in the game.

Ultimately, the way you understand and play the opening sequence of the game will determine how much fun you have in the later stages of the game.

Here is a link to series of webpages that focus on the key skills of learning how to assess your opening terrain position and then what tasks you need to complete in order to get the most power out of your start position.

Improving Your Opening Play Sequences (http://www.civfanatics.com/content/civ3/strategy/cracker/civ3_starts/index.htm)

If you play a powerful opening sequence, you will have the position, production, and military power to guarantee that you can win the game on almost any difficulty level.

Enjoy the article, and if you have any questions or comments, feel free to post them here for discussion.

I've made a news post about it. The site is officially open for business! :king: :cool:

Error: You list in your terrain+terrain bonus list the possibility of cattle/wheat ON a bonus grassland. Will never happen. The only time a bonus resource will be found on a bonus grassland is if you did it yourself in a custom map. That would be like putting a wheat on a cattle.

Exsanguination,

Thanks for reading the article. Hopefully this information will help you get more enjoyment from the game.

The ERROR you pointed out is not an error or an oversight. Yes, the random map generator does not make the mistake of stacking bonus resources like cows and wheat on top of bonus grassland squares, but YOU may encounter this mistake (or design choice) in modified game scenarios and custom created maps. Your example of "putting wheat on top of cattle" could not occur in the current game engine even if you use the editor so that is not the same issue.

You will not encounter these super charged squares under normal game play conditions. The fact that you will not encounter these options very often is already highlighted in the notes and discussion that follows the table you reference.

Here's a direct link to the table: Terrain Types Table (http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/civ3_starts/opening_plays.htm#terrain_types_table)

The techniques discussed in the article are independent of the specific squares that may be available and could be applied even when someone has really distorted the basic game play issues by adding 10, 20, or even 30 new bonus/strategic/luxury resources.

Remember that there is no substitute for knowing what you are doing.

Read on further in the article and if you find any real errors let us know so we can fix them. You might want to discuss any future issues so we can decide together if they are errors or if they may reflect a different level of understanding or a different perspective. An example of this type of difference in perspective is the calssification of Jungles and Forests as a type of terrain overlay instead of a terrain type.

Good luck,

Great stuff I've been reading so far. Shame I have to go offline now and can't read all of it :( Couldn't you please offer a zip of your great articles for poor people who rather read offline?

What a magnificent article. For someone relatively new to this game, and one who has not played any earlier versions at all, I learned a lot from this analysis.

I am pleased to say that much of what you teach us are things that I had decided intuitivly, maybe from spending twenty years in the US Army Reserve, or from being a military history buff for over fifty years, but to really get down to a true analysis of the strting positions and the relative value of the squares, and how the order of improvement can make a HUGE difference, is very valuable.

This is great work and is worth real study by anyone who is relatively new to the game. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of players would benefit from a thorough study of your work.

Thank you! :) :) :)

I see your reasoning now Cracker.
I'm reading the whole article in pieces, so bear with me. But I did find another *possible* error, but it is more of a question on my part. I quote:


A very good example of this road network expansion as impacted by the river can be found if we examine the choice to develop from Berlin to the plains square we can see to the northwest. In the image below, our worker has moved out from town using one turn and then used 3 turns to build a road segment and then used 1 more turn to move onto the plains square. The worker currently has the choice of building more roads or moving into any one of the squares immediately adjacent to its current position. If the worker completes the road, it will be able to move back along the road and town network to any of the squares marked with an orange 1 to indicate they are all within one turn’s movement allowance. The worker technically will have a choice of 15 different displacement choices if the road is completed.

This is quite misleading - many of those tiles you indicated that could be reached within one turn actually CANNOT be reached in one turn right off the bat. When a worker finishes a specific job, its movement on the turn it completed the task is ALWAYS limited to one tile, road or not. I know myself this is a touchy issue, because I often find myself seeing what you saw (actually using the road for the benefit). Why the discrepancy (and obvious contradiction)? It is my belief (I have not tested this thoroughly) that if a worker finishes a ROAD, my above statement is true. If it finishes a mine/irrigation/other, it may use the road it lies on. This latter notion is pure hypothesis - but I know in some form my initial statement IS true.

That said, a newbie could be quite misled as to the power of what you are describing. But, to avoid confusion, once I get home (I'm currently at school), I will test my latter hypothesis diligently and will post the results here (if you don't mind).

EDIT: Hmmm... I didn't know rivers limited movement. Does this apply to all units (ie horseman/knights)? Or jsut to the road benefit?

--Ex

I've yet to see a jungle overlaying plains otherwise very well balanced article. Wish I could have read it b4 my first game or five.

EDIT: Hmmm... I didn't know rivers limited movement. Does this apply to all units (ie horseman/knights)? Or jsut to the road benefit?

Rivers use up some of the unit's movements points. This is before you get the engineering tech. Like if there is a road on both sides of the river, a worker will use up a turn crossing that river, as if the roads had not been there. So, if crossing a river, a worker can only go from one square on one side of the river to another square adjacent to it but on the other side of the river, if the river wasn't there the worker could go 3 tiles on roads. After you get engineering, rivers do not slow down your movements.

Edit: I'm not sure about units that have the 'use all terrain as roads' flag. They might not have the river crossing penalty, I'm not sure.

Originally posted by Exsanguination
... Why the discrepancy (and obvious contradiction)? It is my belief (I have not tested this thoroughly) that if a worker finishes a ROAD, my above statement is true. If it finishes a mine/irrigation/other, it may use the road it lies on.
Note that the information above is speculative and false

Ex,

I need to ask you to change your approach here just a little bit if you actually expect to be treated with the respect you deserve. When the first words out of your mouth include "error", "discrepency", "mistake" and other words that may spawn conflict this has two major negative effects. First, the sound of your brain slamming shut is so loud that it is hard to imagine that you may benefit from these articles if your first reaction is to try and spend all your time finding errors (whether they exist or not.) Second, it is difficult to support you in the voyage of discovery that you obviously need to complete, when your first objective seems to be to find fault with something that extends beyond your experience.

Please PM me with any questions you may have and do not post any more pucblic comments until you get a little better handle on what you are doing as well as the content of the article.

Your comment above is dead wrong and just illustartes the point that you need to understand what you are doing if you expect to enjoy it instead of being victimized by your own misconceptions.

You are just manufacturing confusion for otehrs by your continued use of an authoritative tone in posting about errors that do not exist and combining with things that are just plain false.

Again, I welcome your comments and feedback, but eliminate the negative and misleading issues if you want to maximize the benefit we both can gain from the process.

Good luck,

It's an excellent article! You talked about a lot of things I try to think about as I play, but you analyzed each step much more than I do. I really liked how you tried out different strategies on the one starting condition, and compared the results. It really showed how little details, like river crossings, could make the difference between an efficient worker, and one that wastes turns by moving around.

As for the people who have found errors:
1) In my experience, workers can always move normally after finishing an improvement, roads and all.
2) For moves across rivers, roads are ignored until you discover construction (I think that's the right advance). That's the only penalty, horsemen can still move 2 spaces even if they cross a river on the first move.
3) Jungle over plains is probably another situation where the random map generator doesn't do it, but it is possible to edit it that way.

Bamspeedy is right about roads and rivers but I thought I should clarify the way I look at roads and rivers.

Roads triple the movement ability for units. For each normal square that a unit could move, it can move three squares along roads. It is sort of like each road square has a movement cost of 1/3rd of a point.

When you cross a river on squares that contain roads you need to recognize that the roads are not really continuous and uninterrupted for movement purposes until after you have discovered engineering. (its amazing how many people really don't know this).

Rivers don't really use up movement points per se, they just break up the movement sequence so that crossing the river does not give you the full benefit of the roads.

An example illustrates the impact of roads using a unit with normally 2 movement points.

If you moved that unit along a road you could cross six squares:

0 - r - r - r - r - r - r

(zero is the starting square with a road and all the remaining six squares have roads as indicated by a lowercase r)

If a river exists along the road, then where the river is located will impact how much movement you get.

If the river is right next to the starting square, then your unit will use up one full movement point to cross the river and will then be able to move along three additional road squares:

0 R r - r - r - r - . - . -

If the river occurs after a square of road, then crossing the river will use up what is left of the first movement point and you will still be able to move out three additional squares of road beyond the river.

0 - r R r - r - r - r - . -

If the river occurs after two squares of road, then crossing the river will use up what is left of the first movement point which is just 1/3rd of of a point and you will still be able to move out three additional squares of road beyond the river.

0 - r - r R r - r - r - r -

In this last case, there is no real effect from the movement penalty because of where the river occurs in the movement sequence. If you tried to reverse your movement pattern and take the unit back to where it started, you would find that the river now will cause your unit to stop just on the other side of the river and leave you short of your objective.

Originally posted by cracker

0 - r - r R r - r - r - r -

In this last case, there is no real effect from the movement penalty because of where the river occurs in the movement sequence. If you tried to reverse your movement pattern and take the unit back to where it started, you would find that the river now will cause your unit to stop just on the other side of the river and leave you short of your objective.

Because I use horsemen alot I know this to be untrue.

0 - r - r R r -

The river uses a whole movement point before engineering. So regardless of the point where you cross the river you can move three roads squares and 1 river sqaure.

CB

cracker, I think your work is absolutely excellent. I think that your method of city site evaluation is an aid that can help people learn how to win on deity. I rely on my "end game" to make up for my weak early game, I think that you "proof of method" style will help me learn alot more about how to work the early game. Keep up the great work!

Thanks,

CB

cracker, thanks for this excellent work.
I play the exampel: GOTM10 before read the rest. So when I
comparison my solution with Your's there is some difference
I build as 2. a Grannary. And so I build a Mine instaet of irri-
gation on that Cattle
.Nice luck, at 1710 BC in both Exampel was a Settler finish build,so
we can compair.
Your way until this moment give 1 Settler and 1 Scout plus.
For this I have 1 Grannary. So 1 Settler every 5-6 Turns.
My question is what's better?
To build the 2. City 8 Turns before and hafe 1 Scout plus for
inquire (Your Exampel) or build the 4. and the rest of the citys
faster.
This question is sure not for find a mistake, if my way is better.
No I just want to laern, like all the time with Your's work.

Originally posted by cracker

Note that the information above is speculative and false

When the first words out of your mouth include "error", "discrepency", "mistake" and other words that may spawn conflict this has two major negative effects.

Well then you and I play two different civ3 games, cause I don't lie :). As for the last statement, most of those words were used in reference to my speculation, not yours. Take no offense. But anyhow, if you wish for me to discontinue pointing out possible source of errors to the public, I shall do so. Do not expect me to return.

No hard feelings (I hope).

--Ex

Originally posted by Exsanguination


When a worker finishes a specific job, its movement on the turn it completed the task is ALWAYS limited to one tile, road or not.


My workers get benefit from roads immediately when they are finished. Never heard of the 1 tile rule after completing a task before. We really must be playing different games after all, yours must be a modification. :)

CB

Total nonsense this work then movement penalty

Intuitively after many, many, games, I figured out the terrain bonuses you detailed. However, I'd been overlooking the simple tactic of building mines or irrigation prior to roads. I played a new game with the tactics you suggested and I think I'm finally gonna be able to have success at a level above warlord. Thanks. Looking forward to future articles. :cool:

Adm Kutzov,

I am a better player now than I was befor I wrote the article. Just taking the time to work through a few of the details has realy simplified things for me, and now I tend to watch the more improtant things and catch little opportunities to gain a turn here and a turn there.

I think the order of improvements in the squares is now something that I have a much better feel for since I have played the test games.

I think it helps to look at things in terms of how many turns of benefit can you get from the improvements and then which one of the three choices (food, shields, or gold do you think you need the most.

In the early moves, your improvements will be running behind the citizen workers. In other words, the cictizens will usually be working the unimproved squares and then taking advantage of the improvements as they come on-line.

The internal city governor will assign the citizens to work the most powerful squares currently availlable and then use the governor settings that emphasive your choice of food, production, or commerce as a tie breaker as long as each square produces an avarage of at least two food units.

In the three examples that are presented in the article, the most powerful squares in the 21 tile capital city footprint are all located outside the initial 9 tile starting square territory. If you play the test situations through and watch them closely, you will see that the first citizen starts off working the most powerful square in the interior ring and then abandons this square to move out and work one of the wheat or cow squares when the territory expands.

In your openning move choices you are usually balancing food production and shield production to try and grow rapidly enough to support producing settlers plus other stuff. A little bit of forward thinking will let you determine if there really is a benefit to building the irrigation or mine before you road the square.

Rarely will you ever complete a mine or irrigation in a square without completing the road either before or after. There are lots of examples where you should complete a road without wasting the worker turns to complete the irrigation or mine. You will come back along the working improvements when the city population gets up to a level that can make the improvements pay you back for the effort expended in the worker turns.

The speed with which you can get the improvements on line and working is another reason that irrigating a few plains squares is far more valauable than mining the same numebr of common grassland squares. These two terrain types produce the same power output, but the plains version cost 7 worker turns to improve while the grassland version costs 9 worker turns.

Good luck in your gameplay, and hopefully you will join use in a few Quick Start Challenge games.

This article looks very interestiong, cracker, but there's one little problem: on the main page, the picture of the settler is on top of some of the text, making it impossible to read that text. Is there anyway to get around this? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Willj,

What screen resolution (ie 1024x768 or 800x600) are you operation at??

Also what browser program are you using??

I have checked the in MSIE5+ and NetNav but have not checked all the other options.

One thing you might try as a workaround for your resolution and browser combo, might be to select the text that is obscured and then quickly paste it into a text file or temporarily onto your desktop. Here is the first paragraph text just cut and pasted even when I have force the image to artificially overlay the text by making my image window way too narrow.

"This series of web pages includes some basic concept information that should be considered a “must read” for any player new to the Civ3 game. Even if you have played a previous game such as Civ2 or SMAC, you should probably read through this information to make sure you are not importing any misconceptions from your prior experiences. If you are an experienced Civ3 player, then please read this basic information to provide a common frame of reference for other technical and strategy discussions that may follow."

The web pages are configured and tested at screen resolutions of 1024x768 and 1152x864

OK, thanks, cracker, that was the text that I was talking about. I didn't think of copying and pasting the text, and now I guess I don't have to worry about resolution.

Cracker, I'm playing my first meaningful Regent game. Score is 4200+, around 1960, Standard size map with 4 opponents. The revisions in my tactics after reading the article helped. I used to focus on pushing my roads out to establish a large territory of control and get the luxuries. Still do that, but tweaking the focus made all the diff. Looking forward to the forest article.

HiYa cracker,
Glad to see the analytical approach you commonly take (based on your earlier posts I have seen) being the basis for in-depth analysis of the early game. It should be obvious to everyone that the early game, much like compounded interest, dominates how the later stage of the game can occur. The value of EVERY turn in the early game is MUCH greater then that of a single turn in the later stages, by and large. Good Work! :goodjob: One sublity that I really appreciated was that irigating a Plains is more efficient (worker time wise) then Mining a Grasslands, making the Plains a better tile to have. Obvious after you think it through, of course, but I'd missed that one! I'd always been lusting after grasslands over plains.

Regarding roads and rivers: now, this is based on the early patches, as I've been slow to get above 1.16- hopefully the impression the game has made on me is still valid in 1.29. It seems that unlike in Civ 2 you get the benefit, on having a "fraction" of a mp left, to always be able to move one last tile, regardless of the tiles actual movement point cost. You move a one MP foot unit two tiles on a road, you've got one/third of a MP left, and your able to move off the road, even onto a hill or a mountain.

I've found that if your river road crossing is at the end of this fraction of movement, the negative effect of the river is alleviated. What I try to do, is have the road cross the river two tiles out from the city. Your unit moves 2 tiles at 1/3 MP cost each, its got 1/3 left, it could only go one more tile anyway, so being stopped short at that point after crossing the river isn't any different than if the river hadn't been there- you'd only have moved one more tile along the road anyway. So the lack of having the Construction tech doesn't effect you.

I would think that if you place your roaded river crossings every third tile (where you HAVE to go back and forth accross rivers) you would, in effect, not be impeded by the presence of the river. (Note that this may be irrevelant in some cases- you don't WANT to move out 2 tiles from the city before you cross the river, or its already a extra turn, or you've moved past the item you wanted to get too!). I think this is so for 1 MP (foot) units. I'm not as sure for Horse or other higher MP units. If "the use of the LAST 1/3 MP (ie fraction) always allows a one tile movement" is a case of a unit can always move one tile, IF it has ONLY a fraction of a MP LEFT, true, than perhaps a fast mover like Horsemen won't get this benefit on the last third of their FIRST MP. That is, the Horsemen move 2 tiles on a road and come to a river, then depending on what is the tile on the other side of the river they might have to stop immediatley on crossing, or perhaps not- grasslands vs. forest or hills (this is presuming the road continues on in those terrains).

I hope this made some sense. It's been my experience with foot units that its advantageous to place the river crossing after 2 roaded tiles, and the lack of Construction doesn't thereby doesn't effect you. Again, that may not be what you want to do anyway, particularly if your talking about the development around a city specifically, but in some cases of longer distance travel it may be of help.

Civ On!

I understood what you are saying royfurr.

Horseman (2 movement points) would work the same way, but they could go 5 roaded tiles, than cross the river on the 6th tile. The 5 tiles on road used up 1 2/3 of his movement points and he only needed the last 1/3 movement to cross the river that should have used up 1 full movement point. But using this to the full advantage would require alot of studying of the map to ensure that the map/terrain would actually allow you to make full use of this technique/strategy.

But it's ENGINEERING, not Construction that enables you to cross rivers freely.

Bamspeedy,
Yahh, you are correct, it is Engingeering NOT Construction that end the "tyranny of the Rivers" ie allow road movement rates accross rivers.

You sound to be of the school that feels that only the last fractional point of the movment allowance eg the 5th road tile to the 6th for a horseman or the 8th to the 9th for a Rider- the last fraction of the LAST movement point, will get this relief of movement over the river. As compared to an allusion (sp??) that cracker was making (if I understood him properly) that the last fraction of ANY movement point did this- Here, the 2nd road tile to the 3rd (the 2nd third and the third third, of the first movement point) crossing the river, and then you could (allegedly) still move 3 more tiles (on a road) using the 2nd movement point. I think that its only the very last fractinal amount of the last movement point. You'd use up that last movement point getting accross the river WITHOUT the benefit of the road (since it was NOT the LAST movement points fractional remaning value), hence no last 2nd movement point remains to be used.

If I remember correctly, in either CIv 2 or 1, you lost that fraction. You COULD always move one tile no matter what, but if you had a fraction left and it wasn't enough to enter the next tile, if you'd already moved one, you lost that fraction, and you were STOPPED at the river after moving 2 road tiles- you couldn't get accross the river on that last fraction- unitl you built the Engineering tech.

If this is so, and this aspect of the game was deleberately changed in going from C2 to C3, than its likely a deleberate design decision to speed up movement a little in the ealry years before you have Engineering. But not a LOT, as its ONLY the Last of the movement ponts that get the benefit (I think). OF course, it could also just be an accident, a quirk of the rules and the programming.

Regarding the difficulty of using this "trick" or quirk of the rules and having to closely study the map, it would seem to NOT be as intensive as crackers' close numerical rating of the "power" of tiles and the time to accomplish worker tasks- those take REAL study to compare possible strategies. I just count out groups of 2+1 tiles for where to cross the river, compared to the likely origin of the trip (usually a city). I have only rarely extended this out beyond that first integeral group of three tiles to a second 2+1 grouping then a third, but it would seem to be easy enough to do.
Often this only helps in longer distance travel, NOT for workers getting access to work the tiles just accross the river from a city

Sorry this (and the first) post is so wordy, but its hard to express this in a way that fully explains what I mean without doing it that way.

Civ On!

cracker,

After buying the game when it came out, I finally can put some time into playing it. Your articles showed an approach that for some reason simply did not occur to me. It seems silly now, but a strictly analytical approach to the game just seemed to take the fun out of it. After reading your articles, that cannot be farther from the truth. The opposite happened, and, while my game play slowed down significantly, I get much more involved and immersed in it, and the game has become a lot more enjoyable.

Thanks!

-bc

I've been playing Civ since it first came out. I played Civ I a TON, Civ II a little, and Civ III somewhere in between (Civ III is by far the best, IMO).

Anyway, that has to be the most thorough analysis I've ever seen of the opening sequence. You brought up a lot of things I hadn't really considered. I didn't realize, for one thing, that siting a city on a hill was actually kind of a good thing, and siting it on a bonus square was bad.

Also, I've always developed the bonus squares very early, regardless of the 'balance' of resources to food. Obviously, as you demonstrate, that isn't always the right way to go.

Thanks for all your work.

Well done, cracker :goodjob:
Clear, thoughtful and well written. Congratulations.

Can you post a printer friendly version of your tile power chart (the chart with the terrain and suggested improvements/ I keep trying to copy & paste it, but it's not working right.


Good article by the way, a little on the dry side, but it is more like a work from academia than what is normally produced by Civinators.

I've got a question for Cracker on city siting and spacing. If we agree that only a few tiles count for the early game, should we densely pack cities to maximize the number of good tiles used and too minimize the road effort and travel times needed to get intial cities up and running? Put another way, are we losing too much time and wasting good tiles by not densely packing cities? You could always pop out settlers and workers from the core cities later to create an ideal city density for the later game. Let them build RR.

Originally posted by jshelr
Put another way, are we losing too much time and wasting good tiles by not densely packing cities? You could always pop out settlers and workers from the core cities later to create an ideal city density for the later game. Let them build RR.

In the large number of low difficulty games I've played, I've found the higher scores go with city spacing of 2 tiles. If you search the War Academy, you'll find articles that tell you to pack cities one space apart. This doesn't work FOR ME. On the other hand, "optimal" spacing, having 20-22 squares to access per city is inefficient 'cause they can't use more than 12 until you get Santitation way late in the game.

Cracker,

Your strategy article is wonderful and I am studying it. It is hard for me but I trying to get a grip on it.

Didn't you say you were adding the Jungle and Forest part to the article on Sept. 15?

I'm looking for it.

stwils:):)

We will be a day or so late due to the domain problem interrupting the upload and checkout process but the Forestry article is almost done.

There are a number of custom graphics and charts in this article as well as the example scenarios so this took a bit of effort to put together and test.

There will be a front page news announcement as soon as the article is released to the public.

I can't wait for you to see the article and take advantage of any great pearls of wisdom that may be there.

First, great article and thanks for the thoughts. For example, I had never thought about analyzing the direction of my early exploration viz-a-viz the position of my capitol city on the map. Thanks. Now, onward to the/my fog.

My early game strategy is to maximize settlers in my capitol city, typically (and ideally) interspersed one after the other with settler, then low cost warrior (or, preferably, other cheap military units), settler, warrior, settler, etc. Then, down the road, after a few cities are founded, pop a temple in the capitol to control happiness growth, and on to wonder production (ultimate target: Great Library). Always. Get those additional cities built surrounding the capitol thus freeing the capitol for wonder production, thereby shifting the burden of settler production to satellite cities.

But . . . . I never irrigate in the early game. Only mine (and build road). After leaving the capitol city, my very first move is onto a bonus grid where I first build a mine. Then, a road. In fact, I generally (but not always) won't bother with irrigation until sanitation when I want to grow beyond size 12.

So please correct this next observation. Does irrigation always work to increase food production in early despotism? I have irrigated in the past early on when I wanted to increase food in a high shield early capitol city in order to equalize turns per settler/military unit, but I keep finding that the irrigation doesn't produce the expected additional food at this early point in the game. Irrigation only comes along after I ditch despotism for a government (which I almost always do asap -- generally Republic).

I have checked this out from time-to-time because the AI does irrigate early on, and there are times in despotism when it would be very beneficial for me to irrigate, especially in a plain. I mean, there is nothing more frustrating than being able to produce a settler in 8 turns in a size 2 city, but not getting sufficient pop growth until turn 9 or 10, thereby wasting some turns because I have to go military > settler > military > military > settler, etc. Instead of military > settler > military > settler, etc.. And I hate waste (but will occasionally waste in the early game in order to build cities asap).

So my questions: 1. Are my observations about the "irrigation with no additional food in early despotism" just flat wrong in every scenario? Again, I know I have checked this out before, but obviously others are getting the food benefit in early despotism, and I guess I could be wrong?

2. Is the "no food" observation, if correct at all, somehow linked to the particular Civ I play? I play Greek and Persion usually.

3. Again, if the "no food" observation has any merit at all, when does irrigation begin to take effect if same is not government, advance, or Civ linked?

4. And finally, if irrigation is indeed government, advance, or Civ linked, why would you waste a worker's time putting in irrigation in the early game scenario until you were at, or very close to, that particular government, advance, or Civ?

Any and all feedback appreciated.

At any rate, I agree with you: the begin game is, to me at least, the most crucial part of the game, and will almost always determine where you wind up at the end.

When you are in despotism any tile that normally would produce 3 or more of something (food, shield, gold) gets one taken away.

So irrigating grassland in any other government than despot would produce 3 food, but in despot you get 1 taken away so you would get only 2. 2 food is what you get without irrigating the grassland, so it is pointless to irrigate grassland while in despot (UNLESS the grassland had a bonus resource on it that adds more food).

Irrigating plains while in despot is almost always a smart move because you are only getting 1 food, so irrigating it gives you 2 food and you are not subject to the penalty yet.

Keep the tile penalty in mind, should you be debating whether or not to have your golden age while in despot. All the mined bonus grassland squares and gold from roads that are on rivers, you would not be getting any benefit from. You get 2 shields (or gold on roads by rivers) from them, the golden age brings this to 3, but the despot penalty drops it back to 2. So you aren't getting the full benefit from a golden age while in despot. All those irrigated plains, however, would double from 1 shield to 2 and would not be getting the tile penalty from despot.

Xover,

Here's a direct link to the page in the article that has the terrain types table:
http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/civ3_starts/opening_plays.htm

This table lists all the most powerful terrain types and displays their RAW DESPOT POWER on the left with the IMPROVED DESPOT POWER on the right if you follow the suggested improvement choice.

If you look carefully at the second column of that table, you will see all the terrain types that already have had their raw food production capacity reduced by 1 becasue of the depot penalty. These are marke with an asterisk.

The terrain types that show a 2 value in that column have not yet incurred the despot food penalty, so if you irrigate them to add one food unit that increase will be absorbed by the despot penalty and you will see no increase.

The terrain types that already show an asterisk and the terrain types that are still held down to a 1, could increase food production without incurring another despot penalty.

It is the wrong conclusion to say you should not irrigate under despotism. Technically it is the wrong conclusion to say you should never irrigate grasslands but in most cases you should not.

Practice the terrain assessment tricks a few times and it will become much easier for you to choose between irrigation or mining.

A good example to file in your memory banks is the choice between two different terrain squares. If you have only one worker and all the squares this worker could move to fall into exactly two groups. If one group is plains that can be irrigated and the other group is grasslands that can be mined; all other factors of position and proximity being the same, what should you do first: Mine the grassland or Irrigate the Plains.

In the opening sequences, the answer is that you should irrigate the plains first if they would make your most powerful squares because it would only cost 8 worker turns (move+irrigate+road) to complete these tasks while the grassland would cost 10 worker turns (move+mine+road) to result in the same power output.

So the answer to your questions 2, 3, and 4 is that irrigation always works, it is the benefit that gets reduced in Despotism in some cases.

Study the terrain table on the linked page above and you wiil get a cleared picture of how the despot penalties impact your improvement choices.

An example of where the mines would not work in despotism would be the Plains with Cattle and this is shown in the third column of the table.

I hope this helps. I am really glad you read the article.

One extra piece of advice I would try to add is that you definately should not fixate on a build order sequence that you think will always work. The build order depends on how much power you have available early in the game and whether that power is concentrated in food, commerce, or shields. I definately emphasize settlers early on, but the sequence of units and improvements should be tailored to the terrain, the civ you have to work with, the difficulty level, and the strategy you have chosen. The same build order should not apply to Japan on grassland when compared to other civs and positions like the Russia on Flood Plains or Egypt in the Mountains.

Good luck,

Interesting (to me, at least), bamspeedy.

So here is what I think I'm reading from your response. You, or anyone else interested, give me some feedback, if you would.

For the examples below, we assume early game despotism:

Any grassland, enhanced or unenhanced, produces 2 food. Improved with irrigation, that grassland ought to produce 3 food, but will not because of the -1 despotism penalty.

But if the grassland has, say, a cattle resource on it, and it's unimproved, it will have 3 food (4-1)? Improved with irrigation, it will have 4 food (4+1-1)?

And since the -1 despot penalty applies only to values over 2, then irrigation on plains is effective even in despotism because the irrigation of +1 is added to the normal 1 food plains produces, and the despot penalty is ineffective because the sum does not exceed 2?

All this may well comport with my prior observations because I think I checked out irrigation in 2 separate games but only on enhanced and unenhanced grassland. Then drew some premature conclusions.

So, in early game depotism, the following examples are true?

Unenhanced grassland = 2 food
Enhanced grassland = 2 food
Irrigated unenhanced grassland = 2 food (2+1-1)
Irrigated enhanced grassland = 2 food (2+1-1)
Grassland with cattle = 3 food (2+2-1)
Irrigated grassland with cattle = 4 food (2+1+3-1)
Plains = 1 food
Irrigated plains = 2 food (1+1-0)
etc.?

Assuming the above to be correct, it will certainly alter my early game improvement strategy.

********

cracker: I just noticed you responded. Thanks. Yea, I read the article. Damn fine article too. I'm fixin' to go back and restudy the examples as well as your response. The begin game is key to CivIII, IMO, and is therefore worth some thought and study, at least if you want to play the game as effectively as possible. Plus, I also think the begin game is the really the most interesting part of the whole game. But that's just me.

After reading your response, I originally tried studying the table, but, perhaps because I was dense, I didn't really 'get it.' Might I suggest that immediately before the table you give a sentence pointing out the -1 despot penalty for food (or shields) over 2, as well as an example with enhanced grassland and one with plains, then lead into the chart? For people like me, it would be helpful. Just a thought. I'm going to go back and reexamine the article now . . . .

********

Ok, cracker, about the table:

I now see where you have the asterick(s) as the end of the table as explanation. Still, I think it would be helpful to some if there was also an explanation paragraph at the beginning of the table -- similar to what bamspeedy explains above.

Plus, I have some other confusions.

Look at, for example, the "Grassland + Cattle" line. Under the "Improved Despot Food" column, it reads, "3*(4*)", and under the "Improvement" column, it reads, "see note 1". Before continuing, the "3*(4*)" means that "3*" is the mined food result, and "(4*)" is the irrigated food result, doesn't it? If not, then I still don't 'get it'.

If so, then to me, the table has some ambiguity since irrigation seems to be a major thrust of your early improvement strategy (due to less turns). Logically the table ought to read "4*(3*)", shouldn't it? Where the "4*" represents the result if irrigated, and "(3*)" would represent the result if mined? Shouldn't the irrigation result preceed the mined result? Especially the way "Note 1" reads, namely the language, "choice of irrigate or mine"?

Anyhow, excellent article and very helpful.

cracker:

thanks a lot man! now I have an idea of how to fix hill/mountain-bounded cities with no access to irrigation. on your guestimate that 95% of Civers don't fully understand settlers, I think you're 100% right on.

MSGT John Drew,

Make sure you don't misread the page on settlers performing worker tasks because a town located on a hill cannot pass irrigation from one side of the town to the next.

You get the instant road and railroad but no canals over the mountains. So this may not be an instant fix to your irrigation problems in the lost valley.

cracker, you missed Persia as industrious civ in your forest-article. I know, it's not a big deal but I wanted you to know.

Thanks Zingo,

I'll double check the locations where that topic comes up and fix those references. That sometimes occurs in conversion of the files because I edit out some of the extraneous html tags that get included with place names. This speeds up the downloads but can lead to occasional braincramps on my part.

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee

Because I use horsemen alot I know this to be untrue.

0 - r - r R r -

The river uses a whole movement point before engineering. So regardless of the point where you cross the river you can move three roads squares and 1 river sqaure.

The moving across the river depend on terrain type placed on the other bank of the river. Crossing river movement penalty is equally that terrain's movement penalty. If you move across the river from any terrain type tile to the hill or mountain (both tiles have the road) you stop on that tile. Anyway it is your first move or 6-th move of horsemen (has 2 movement point). Hence it is rationally to end unit moving by crossing the river but not to begin.
All above statements are true before discovering the Engineering.

I would like to take time to say that your articles on the 'early game' tactics has really opened my mind on how I should start off my Civ3 games. Up until now, I was only successful about 30% of the time at Regent level using my development strategies. I have started putting into practice some of your strategies and it has improved my game. Yes, the Babylonians nuked Moscow twice on me ;), but at least now I'm in a commanding lead of over 700 points, and on track to complete my spaceship first out of me (the Russians), France, and Babylon. I used to play with automated settlers because I enjoyed focusing on the military aspect of Civ3 the most. No longer! Long live human intelligence in the use of Workers!! :lol:

I have a quick question. When in the Iroquois Grassland example you decided to irigate the cow square northeast of Salamanca, why didn't you build a mine instead? I had thought that the extra food from irrigation would be wasted under despotism.

Pi Seti,

I think the article covers this question fairly well by detailed examples and tables on page two of the article.

You have misinterpretted the rule on how despotism impacts things. It is not that irrigation is wasted. The rule is that any square that produces more than two of anything will get a one unit penalty.

So if irrigation rasies the square to get 2 food normally --- you get 2 food
if irrigation raises the square to get 3 food normally --- you get 2 food
if irrigation raises the square to get 4 food normally --- you get 3 food, etc.

The penalty applies to gold and shields as well.

Squares with cows and wheat will generall already have enough food production that the despot penalty has already been extracted leaving you in a position to be above the line where the despot penalty will prevent you from seeing the irrigation benefit.

cracker ,
just another newbie wanting to thank you for your opening play summary . Very informative . I consider myself fortunate to have found it so early in my "career" .
Will start a new game soon to practice what you preach ...:king:

Yo cracker - how about some comments on initial diplomatic relations. I've been playing GOTM 13, but I've been playing catchup on techs. I've been reluctatant to give up my world map for fear of being attacked. Am I wromg?

Thats a very good article Cracker. Nice work :b:

Cracker.
Thank you for your great work, it opens my eyes on how to play CIV3. Now a party will last for ever, it's going to take time before I move a unit. THANK YOU.

Cracker,

You amaze me with the analytical power that you have. Thanks so much for such an excellent tutorial! It must have taken you many hours to complete such an extensive undertaking. By the way, congratulations on your most recent GOTM victory. That just gives me even more confidence in all of the things I've learned from your tutorial. Keep up the good work! Thanks a lot!
One more thing, I was blown away by the SOTD of yours in which you had covered the entire screen with Modern Armor/Mech. Infantry! Do you have 24 hour days like the rest of us? Where do you come up with all that time? Take care.

Cracker,

Do you ever consider producing a second Worker before anything else (or after a Warrior)? This reduces the waste from working unimproved terrain, and often you can quickly regain the lost time.

Ribannah,

I have tested the early 2nd worker thought process and generally don't think it works well.

It delays the first settler by sucking up 20 food units when you usually do not have lots of these.

In most positions, you can gain an extra shield of power easier than you can gain an extra growth point of food because shields are cummulative while each extra citizen eats 2 food and only gains any excess above this. Grassland and Plains are topped out without the presence of bonus resources.

The other factor is the free unit support value of 4 units under despotism. For standard civs: 1 worker (given at start) + 1 warrior + 1 worker + 1 settler = 4. For expansionist civs, 1 worker (given at start) + 1 scout (given at start) + 1 scout + 1 worker + 1 settler = 5 and this drives you over the free support level.

Most of the scenarios I tested ended up behind because my early units ended up over the 4 free units per town limit.

Getting the first city to raise your unit support level above the 4 minimum is critical. and then you can debate more workers vs more settlers vs more other stuff.

I did not test every possible combination but I found no examples where warrior+worker or scout+worker seemed to be a stronger process. (this does not mean that the excpetion does not exist.)

It doesn't make any sense to me either because you are delaying getting that second city built by so long. The only time I build a second worker before or around 3000 b.c. is in my second city if that second city was a settler from a hut. Whether or not this is the best, I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me since the second city has virtually no improved tiles.

But the second worker improves the terrain, which allows you to

(a) build faster
(b) grow faster
(c) move faster
(d) research / gain income faster
(e) explore faster
(f) connect resources faster

from in the worst case 3500 BC onward compared to - this is essential - your usual progress from 4000 BC onward. So you should be able to reduce that lag of max 10 turns (often less) rather quickly, while still having that extra worker, too. The support cost is irrelevant as you will have roaded more squares, or, what I often do, use the 40 turn rule to get your first or second tech (Mysticism).

I think the key factor would be whether there are any rivals nearby that can claim land where you would have placed your second or third city. After that, I expect you to have caught up compared to the development path without the extra Worker.

Ribannah, unless your fortunate enough to have built on a site where the city grows quicker than the first worker can make meaningful improvements, your better off getting a second city going. You need more workers when your cities are working undeveloped land. Even just following that lead you will connect cities and resources as quick as you expand. My solution is too brief for cracker's thread but he knows I consider actual situations and don't play off a predetermined rule set. :)

I would just add that improvements around the first city are usually not the problem. SO if you delay getting the 2nd city so you can get another worker around the first city, you are usually solving a problem that does not exist.

The population in the first city will usually oscillate in the 1 to 5 population range for the first 40 to 80 turns anyway. On a site with at least 3 grassland without a food bonus the growth rate pretty much stays at a constant 1 pop point per 10 turns and if you build a warrior(or scout) then a settler you will be assured of holding to a population that stays at 3 or fewer tiles being worked out through about turn 32. Stanadard workers will move-road-mine at the rate of one tile per ten turns. So just the fact that you put out the settler will put the first town in equilibrium or fully improved status even without the extra worker.

In general, a second worker will not speed growth by adding more improvements. The first worker can irrigate and road quicker that the typical growth curve. Mines slow down the worker success rate buy are important. You also have to look at integer combinations of excess food production and this begins to dominate things in floodplain and lots of wheat/cow conditions.

The real key is cranking out subsequent workers for subsequent cities but that is not the best use of the capital city in most cases.

You are still ignoring the advantages. With an extra Worker, your squares are already improved when you work them AND you have roads ready to your next city sites.

I just replayed Moscow on the Hill, where I start 8 turns behind for completing my additional Worker in 3550 BC. I built a Warrior in 3200 BC (instead of 3450 BC), and without rushing I got a Spearman in 2900 BC and Settler #1 in 2590 BC to found St. Petersburg (hill at the ocean, connected to Moscow and the Ivory) in 2510 BC (only two turns behind) with Worker #2 ready to improve the second FL Wheat square and protected by my Spearman from the barb Warrior that is approaching.
A second Spearman was completed in 2390 BC.
In 2150 BC, I discovered Iron Working (after Ceremonial Burial and Mysticism which I traded for Warrior Code, Masonry, Alphabet, The Wheel and money). We are now #1 in science thanks to not rushing anything.
Still without rushing, I built Settler #2 in 2150 BC to found Kiev (hill NW) in 2070 BC (two turns behind) with Worker #1 ready to start improving the terrain.
In 2030 BC I can have a rushed Settler #3 and start the war machine, with Horseback Riding around the corner. Moscow would be size 2; St. Petersburg has completed another Worker and is growing fast with 2 Workers improving the terrain.
This is now 2 turns ahead of your opening play, I have twice the terrain improvements with all cities connected, a science lead and
the extra Worker. Money was never a problem.

In the Germany example, I got my first Settler in 2750 BC (turn 25) after Spearman, Worker, Spearman. Settler #2 followed another Spearman in 2270 BC (turn 37) and Settler #3 followed a Warrior in 1830 BC (turn 48).
By then we had the Ivory connected and irrigated (near Leipzig), the wheat irrigated, two forests cleared and all the surrounding territory explored.

Some comments on your terrain power (http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/civ3_starts/opening_plays.htm#first_assessment) chart. I believe my suggestions lead to a more accurate calculation of various costs/benefits, especially when building settlers.

1. All raw food values should be reduced by 2 to reflect the upkeep of the citizen working that tile. Gold should also be reduced by 1 to reflect the enterainment cost of that citizen (1 luxury or 1 police upkeep).

2. You should add the basic city center to the chart. I noticed you mention it is worth 6* on the second page but do not provide a background calculation.

CITY CENTER
Despot Raw Food: 2
Despot Raw Shields: 1
Despot Raw Gold: 8 (2 gold + 2 content citizens on Monarch + 4 free units)
Despot Raw Power: 11

If you do not reduce all the other food/gold values, the city center is worth an extra 3 points because it doesn't need to support a citizen.

3. Gold is not interchangeable with food and shields, and it is worth much less in the early game. I would favor removing gold from the raw power calculation and letting it stand alone.

Well, I thing Gold is quite important as it heps a lot to buy techs from other civs. I would not neglect gold myself.

DaveMcW,

Interesting perspective and interesting comments to say the least. :rolleyes:

Since you do not think gold is powerful then I will look to see your dead burnt corpse laying beside the roadside of Civ3 life as time goes by. ;) ;) ;)

You may not think gold is interchangeable with food and shields but that sounds like inexperience and lack of perspective talking. When you have a citizen working a bonus grassland with road and mine and you manage that citizen to change its location and an work an irrigated wheat square on plains, you just took 2 shields and interchanged them to be a food and two gold. From a management standpoint the units of power are interchangeable and its is up to you to recognize how to convert the power components into a more powerful civ position.

Lumping in the free units support from the type of government is out of concept with the purpose of the article. and really just confuses the issues.

Glad you read the article.

I am mainly talking about pre-2000 BC values. No one in their right mind would work an improved gold hill (power 7) over an improved cattle (power 6) before getting a few setters out.

Once you get contacts and the tech race becomes interesting gold regains its value. But the first few dozen moves is where perfect micromanagement is the most important, and in that period gold is inferior.

cracker, I will chime in to support DveMcW a bit.

Assume your starting workable area consists of three types of grasslands:
1) Normal grassland adjacent to river (2 food + 1 gold)
2) Bonus grassland (2 food + 1 shield)
3) Grassland with wheat (3 food)

Now, where would you set your first citizen to work, or the second?

I will find it hard to believe that you will answer 1) to even one of these questions, simply becase in the early game, food and shields are more important than gold.

Is it too late to say what a great article this is? Full of information that I don't think is available anywhere else and organized "to an inch of its life" as several pickers of nits have tried to find something wrong with it without any success at all, imho. I go back to re-read it before I start games I want to play to win. Which is most of them. Bravo Mr. Cracker. or whatever honorific fits the situation Ms, Dr, etc. Please keep up the amazing work. I also read the lumberjack article, and am also deeply impressed but I don't think I can play at that level, at least not yet.

Cracker, as some have already pointed out, the very first moves are the most important in the game, and this article goes much further than anything I have ever read in showing how to get a civ off to an optimal start. That it's presented in a way that, while requiring focus, benefits novice and veteran alike, is a bonus.

Could this be taken any further? Well, I'd like to see a response to Ribannah's later, documented position that building an early worker enhances an optimizing strategy such as yours.

This is a wonderful resource. Your presentation of the information was excellent and I am looking forward to doing a quickstart with my new CrackerTech!

Thanks for helping me with my early game Cracker, Look out Emporers, Omni got a brand new game...

See you in the Quickstart Challenge.

Excellent! I've just started on Civ3 and found your article on opening strategy after having reached similar conclusions about its importance intuitively.

One option that you do not discuss (unless I missed it) is that of moving the settler before building the first city. Clearly it is not a good idea to wander around for decades looking for a good place to set up shop, but typically you cannot even see all 21 starting squares when the game begins.

Have you considered moving the worker first to see more local terrain information before deciding whether to move the settler to an adjacent square to pick up additional bonus resources, or just to build immediately? This seemed to work for me in a couple of quick start games, but I haven't analysed whether it makes a real difference.

In various replays I have seen the worker moved to get a better view of the starting position, on the basis that it is worth giving up a litte to get better information that imporves your position. One of the better reasons to pay an expansionist civilization is to have the scout to do that.

On the other hand, the military has an adage, a mediocre plan, carried out on a timely basis is better than the best plan done too late. (more sucinctly, PPPPPPP (pss poor prior planning prevents perfect performance - I may have left out a P or two.)

It is hard to criticise the commander on the ground (you) for setting where he is and getting on with the business of growing the despotism (I almost said empire, but that comes later). It is to be hoped that future cities will be in optimum locations, but if you don't get started, there might not be any (or enough) cities to settle.

AlanH and Barron,

This issue of whether to move the initial settler is definately discussed in the article at:

Relocating the First Settler (http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/civ3_starts/gotm8_russ_move.htm)

I strongly feel that the right way to address the settler move question is from the "negative" perspective. Don't worry about if you feel you can find a better position eventually, that is not the issue. The question that most players need to answer should be something like "is this start position worse than average or is it likely to impede my game progress."

Develop a set of decision rules that work for you and help you look at the terrain picture that you can see and then evaluate if a settler move will probably make your position stronger and if that strength gain will offset any delays in power, culture, technology, and production growth.

Initially, you will be giving up at least 5 power points for almost every future turn in the game for each and every turn that you move. If you can regain these points by increasing the power of your position then you will end up ahead in the future.

Generally a strong starting position is any location that has at least 4 to 6 power squares that can be improved to 5 levels. Initial food at more than 2 per square in depsotism can really help your game, but moving only because you don't have a cow or wheat is not the right decision.

In the QSC test games that we play, the player who moves the initial settler just to have a look around rarely ends up being in first place compared to players how settle and get on with business.

Of course, the last 3 GOTMs all had start positions that could be improved to +5 food per turn. ;)

Cracker,

Thanks for your detailed reply. Your empirical results from test games are probably the most powerful argument for settling were you stand. :crazyeye:

I agree with DaveMcW: Very early in the game, gold is of relatively little importance. Early on, the aim is to get as many cities as possible, i.e. lots of settlers, as fast as you can get them. To build a setter you need 40 food and 30 shields. You don't need any gold, and there is no easy way to convert gold into settlers.

This is also exactly why the AI used to hamstring itself in pre-PTW by selling off workers. It would sell workers for around 40 gold pieces early on. Effectively, it's selling you 10 shields, and 20 food for 40 gold. Later on 40 gold for a worker isn't bad, but before 2000BC, it's a horrid deal. Gold doesn't become really valuable until you have to start paying lots of maintenance, and you can rush things with it.

Additionally, food is much more valuable than shields in most starts. You need 40 food to get a settler, and only 30 shields; additionally, if you don't have a bonus food tile, you're only going to be able to get a surplus of two food a turn. That's 20 turns for each settler, and if you do get settlers at this rate, every time you get one, your capital gets zonked back to a puny one population city, and so you lose out on production as well.

Unless the map is really cramped, I always try to build a granary before my first settler if I don't have any food bonuses, and usually even if I do.

Lots of players think they have to start building settlers asap, and get worried they are falling behind. But, pumping out one settler every 20 turns is slow. Building a granary and then pumping one out every 10 is the only feasible way to go in my opinion. It'll take you much longer to found your second city, a little longer to found your third, but you should be a little ahead by your fourth, and then you should be able to reach five while the non-granary player still only has four.

I saw the article mention moving the scout before deciding whether to settle for expansionist civilizations. However, I didn't see mention of the practice of moving the worker. If you'd otherwise settle right on the starting square, then you're going to move the worker to a square to work it right? Well, move the worker first: maybe he'll uncover something that gives reason to move the city. It's also worth moving the worker onto a square you don't intend to work on in some situations, especially if there's a mountain or hill he can stand on to see what's around.

This does have the disadvantage of moving the worker without the intelligence provided by founding the city, but I think in most cases it's worth it.

-Sirp.

Or you can start with that big Granary known as The Pyramids. ;)

http://home.hccnet.nl/g.den.broeder/ribannah/Civilization/epics/epic21/RBCiv21_1250BC.jpg

Commerce can be very important if you plan to do research. Remember, that as soon as you turn Monarchy or Republic, your tiles will yield a lot more. Micro-managing your workers in the early game can be very helpful to squeeze out extra gold, by optimally timing the irrigation and mines that you want.

starting with the pyramids is great...I often use this on large maps with 60% water -or when I'm on an island and there are no cometing civs that will take away my land. The question whether to build Pyramids or not is very similar to the early granary decision...it's just a much bigger investment and so it needs more time to pay off.

Starting with The Pyramids can be a good idea, but it is not just a difference of degrees vs starting with a granary, there is a fundamental difference: If someone else builds The Pyramids before you, you're stuck. This is very likely to happen on Deity leve, or in a multiplayer game. It's much more of a gambit all round, but one that can pay off big if you make it.

-Sirp.

Cracker,

I realize this article is somewhat old (but it is new to me!). This is really good stuff -- I look forward to using these techniques in future games. One quick question, is the 10 sheld bonus for clearing a forest subject to corruption? If not, using teams of workers for remote / corrupt cities would seem to be the way to go.

Thanks

Originally posted by Bigfoot
Cracker,

I realize this article is somewhat old (but it is new to me!). This is really good stuff -- I look forward to using these techniques in future games. One quick question, is the 10 sheld bonus for clearing a forest subject to corruption? If not, using teams of workers for remote / corrupt cities would seem to be the way to go.

Thanks Nope, they're free from corruption.

whats the diffrence if you mine or irrgiate a piece of good land, say grassland next to a river, if you mine you get more production, if you irrigate you get more food usally it blances out, unless you want more of one thing, but what is the big diffrence?
In the beging you probably want a healthy mix of production and population so you can build your settlers and support more, but later on you probably could settle for more production.

Another example would be just a Cattle Grassland tile.
You can Irrigate this and get 6 food, 1 gold, 1 production if i remeber right, could be 0 gold anyhow, or mine it and get 4 food, 1 gold, and 3 production ?

Isn't it really want you want 4 that city

Cracker,
Your "Strangler Fig" strategy is hilarious! I can't wait to see it in action.

This is a very well written article. Your insights into the power of food production in the early game have made me a much better player. I know I will be rereading it for a long time to come.

Has microsoft approached you to write help files yet? They need you.

Hi,

Great Article. I have just one little question regarding rushing using the wip. You say“using the whip” to rush production will cause one normally citizen to become unhappy for the next twenty turns for each time we rush a production item
Are you sure? I thought it was one unhappy per citizen "killed" in the rush.

[EDIT] OK, so I confused one person, so I shall give a little example. I either rush a grannery when I have 40 sheilds left or 20. Obviously I loose 2 citizens instead of one, but do I get 1 or 2 unhappy people?

[Deleted - misread the question]

[Edit 2: Nope! *You* didn't confuse me. *I* did that, all by myself :p ]

Thanks for all, Cracker, your work it's excellent, i going to follow it. but i have problems with the english so I try to understand it. because the initial moves are the most important part of the game

�using the whip� to rush production will cause one normally citizen to become unhappy for the next twenty turns for each time we rush a production item

I have just tested this, and it is one unhappy citizen per citizen killed. I am using C3C v1.15

I cant tell u (u already know!:) ) what a different a day makes!Ive really learn alot.Just wanted 2 thank all 4 your help.

I would love to check out your primer Improving Your Opening Play Sequences, but the link provided no longer works. Do you have an updated link? Or can you send me the document? It looks to be unparalleled in its class.

Thanks!

Hello, welcome :wavey:

Try this link (http://www.civfanatics.com/content/civ3/strategy/cracker/civ3_starts/index.htm)

Cracker, two excellent articles!

Fanaticism about CivIII + Skill with Excel + Analytical approach + A lot of hard work!

The Forestry one, in particular, I think I'll have to keep open in a separate window next time I start a game. The Opening Plays includes some things I knew intuitively already, but the analysis brings out a lot more I never thought about.

Just bumping this since everyone keeps referring to it :)

:bump: