Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

For some reason, more fuel doesn't make you any faster so four propulsion (the maximum) and one of each other components is the fastest.
Not that I know much about this in game, but in reality four engines won't make me faster unless I have enough fuel to run all four simultaneously for most of the trip (ideally, all of the trip), right? So I would hope that the truth is that once you have enough fuel to run each the engines for the expected duration of the trip, more fuel actually makes you slower (excess weight but not extra thrust).

And four engines but not enough fuel should be slower than four engines with adequate fuel.

But is that what the game does?

dV
 
Not that I know much about this in game, but in reality four engines won't make me faster unless I have enough fuel to run all four simultaneously for most of the trip (ideally, all of the trip), right? So I would hope that the truth is that once you have enough fuel to run each the engines for the expected duration of the trip, more fuel actually makes you slower (excess weight but not extra thrust).

And four engines but not enough fuel should be slower than four engines with adequate fuel.

But is that what the game does?

It's just like I said. The fastest voyage is four propulsion units. The other components don't matter at all when it comes to speed. They merely increase your final score. If you don't care about score or having a lopsided space craft, then you only need one of each habitation, life support and fuel components.

I confess it's been a while since my last interstellar trip, but aren't objects in space weightless? I.e. bringing extra fuel would not slow you down?

It's moot though. The game isn't scientific at all about this. When it comes to speed, propulsion units are all that matter. I think if you have just one, it takes seven turns for your ship to arrive. If you have all four, then it's three.
 
Things may be weightless, but they still have mass. And the energy required to reach a given velocity is proportional to the mass.

More fuel would obviously increase the mass and therefore increase the energy required to reach a velocity. But more fuel would allow the engines to burn harder (higher acceleration) and longer (higher final velocity). More engines would also increase the mass but would allow higher acceleration.

But we're talking about near light-speed interstellar colonization. Little things like mass and acceleration can get discarded.
 
Things may be weightless, but they still have mass. And the energy required to reach a given velocity is proportional to the mass.

More fuel would obviously increase the mass and therefore increase the energy required to reach a velocity. But more fuel would allow the engines to burn harder (higher acceleration) and longer (higher final velocity). More engines would also increase the mass but would allow higher acceleration.

But we're talking about near light-speed interstellar colonization. Little things like mass and acceleration can get discarded.

Well one thing's for sure. I'm taking you on my next space voyage. I would've avoided a lot of problems if I had you along last time. Do you also know how to steer around black holes?
 
I'm investigating whether this is the sort of game that might appeal to me. I would be getting it for the Iphone if so.

Question: how much micromanagement is there in the game?
- Do you micromanage city tiles? Worker actions?
- How many cities & units might an average civ have in each age, on a small map?
- How much does this vary based on map size?
- How long does an average game on a small map take to complete? A large map?
 
I'm investigating whether this is the sort of game that might appeal to me. I would be getting it for the Iphone if so.

Question: how much micromanagement is there in the game?
- Do you micromanage city tiles? Worker actions?
- How many cities & units might an average civ have in each age, on a small map?
- How much does this vary based on map size?
- How long does an average game on a small map take to complete? A large map?
There are no workers. You can micromanage cities at the tile level, or select focus for city of balance, gold, science, production (hammers) and computer sets the tiles ... although it seems to never work only the focus, it always seems to work one food tile.

Tile yields are increased by particular buildings, not by improvements on the tile itself.

Roads are bought ... with enough gold, you make road to connect two cities. No roads out to nowhere. A 1 move unit can move from one city to another in 1 turn with a road, regardless of distance (more like a civ railroad, IMHO). 2 move units can continue to a second city on a road, in the same turn.

As far as I know, only one map size (at least in DS version)

I have tended to have 2 to 3 cities in ancient (depend on conquests), expand to 4 to six with settlers unless warfare is on a roll, and might end with 8 to 10. Since you can only make roads between cities, you almost have to take cities just to build the roads to get units to the ends of the map!

For me, maybe 4 to six hours to complete a game that isn't a fast warfare win. Probably less for folks who are more familar with the game. Probably varies with difficulty level (I am playing and winning on King currently)

dV
 
Is it really possible to be building tanks in 1000 AD???? Without a cheat I mean.

Yes.

Also, there are no cheats that would give you tanks faster. There aren't any free tech cheats or anything like that.

Tanks by 500 BC or so are doable, but that would require a lot of luck.

China is the civ most likely to pull off absurdly early tanks. You would need to get a whole lot of gold very fast and conquer probably two capitals in the first 15 turns or so. Hopefully either one of them is Rome and you get Code of Laws or you get Angkor Wat for the Great Pyramid and switch to Republic really early and expand like crazy. No need or opportunity to defend these cities. Just work science and push settlers until you hit industrial for half-price libraries and rush the libraries. Hopefully you'll have some good GP because you're going to need to use a scientist to get Combustion quickly enough. Getting a GB to get the East India Company will also help.

That's a basic blueprint, but you are going to need a lucky map to have tanks before 0 AD. Getting tanks by 1000 AD is no problem and could be done with any civ reliably. You just need to expand a lot and push the science. A good starting point is to make sure you have at least 10 cities by 0 AD and keep expanding from there.
 
I read on another forum that they won a space race at... get this 1200 AD!!! I am confused at how people can get this far in the game so early on? the best tech i can get by 1200AD is probably most commonly atomic theory but only because i push for that one and only tech by following the tech tree :/
 
I read on another forum that they won a space race at... get this 1200 AD!!! I am confused at how people can get this far in the game so early on? the best tech i can get by 1200AD is probably most commonly atomic theory but only because i push for that one and only tech by following the tech tree :/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOtT8Tbz5dw

That's a link to a video of a player showing 48 cities at 1300 BC as America in a game of the week. He was able to get Space Flight before 0 AD. Turns out the soonest your ship will arrive at Alpha Centauri is 50 AD.

But with that in mind, 1200 AD is no great feat. The main thing is just to have lots and lots of cities and gear them toward science. In a single-player game, you don't really need much in the way of defenses because the AI becomes really cowardly as you become more powerful.
 
China is the civ most likely to pull off absurdly early tanks. You would need to get a whole lot of gold very fast and conquer probably two capitals in the first 15 turns or so.
Hmm ... are we playing the same game?

With all citizens working hammers, it takes me 3 turns per warrior to produce the first three, so that is 9 turns to a warrior army. Then it has to get to enemy, and it seems by that time I am always facing and losing to archers. So how are folks capturing two capitals in 15 turns? :confused: :crazyeye:

dV
 
Hmm ... are we playing the same game?

With all citizens working hammers, it takes me 3 turns per warrior to produce the first three, so that is 9 turns to a warrior army. Then it has to get to enemy, and it seems by that time I am always facing and losing to archers. So how are folks capturing two capitals in 15 turns? :confused: :crazyeye:

Usually by building horsemen armies. If you are China, it's fairly easy. Put all your workers on production, which will give you two warriors in four turns, then switch them to science getting horseback in another 4-5 turns (depending on whether you have two or three sea tiles available - if you only have two, you can save up production with the other worker). Meanwhile your warriors are killing barbarians and getting gold. Use that gold to rush horsemen. I've had a couple armies together in ~10 turns before. It just takes practice to be that fast, but when you get it going that fast, you're sure to take somebody out.

Warrior armies aren't so great, although they can work with the Zulu, Aztecs, Arabs and Germans, but mostly, yeah, they're too slow. I generally only build warrior armies when playing online. Sometimes I use them for defense like your horse army kills my archer and is wounded, so now my warrior army finishes off your horse army. That kinda stuff.

For two capitals in 15 turns, you have to have a really great start. It's not something that will happen every game. Some players like to move their settlers instead of settling in place. So imagine you move, find 25 gold on the way, settle next to an AI, rush a warrior and walk in before it even finishes a defender (the AI work balanced so they don't have a defender until 3500 BC). Now you have two cities to quickly research and produce horsemen (still send 1-2 warriors out to pick up gold). If so far so good, you're reasonably likely to get another capital before long.

So mainly: horsemen, not warriors and spend gold to increase your speed!
 
I have 2 questions:
Aztec Civ... If i have a temple and upgrade to cathedral or leave the medieval era do i lose my bonus? and with a nuke why do I need an SDI if theres only one ICBM?
 
I have 2 questions:
Aztec Civ... If i have a temple and upgrade to cathedral or leave the medieval era do i lose my bonus? and with a nuke why do I need an SDI if theres only one ICBM?

It's been a while since I've checked, but I think you still get the science from cathedrals. Yes, the bonus is first available in medieval, but continues through the rest of the game.

You don't really need the SDI.
 
ok thanks for the heads up. 2 more questions : What happens if i do get "Future Technology" and There was a patch to stop Mega City building... is this in MP & SP?
 
ok thanks for the heads up. 2 more questions : What happens if i do get "Future Technology" and There was a patch to stop Mega City building... is this in MP & SP?

Future Technology gives you +1 hammer to every production resource (trees give 3 hammers now, for example) the first time you get it. After that it adds to either food or trade (I forget the order), then goes back to production. If you get Future Technology a bunch of times, you can have absurd production levels to the point where there's literally nothing left to build except more units you don't need.

The mega city patch affects both SP and MP games, but I believe only the console games have been patched. I have read that the DS and istuff versions still allow mega city.
 
OK thank you and I shall keep that patch on my "hate list" :mad: :lol:
 
Top Bottom