Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Roland Johansen]

Originally Posted by Lord Parkin

Hmm, I tend to find that the ability to trade technologies with a large number of civs is far more valuable than having a large amount of land to settle. But then again, that's probably just me speaking from familiarity with multiplayer. I guess the AI isn't as wiley as human players, so perhaps the ability to trade technologies doesn't give it as much of an advantage.

In multiplayer amongst seasoned players, if you put 15 nations on one land mass and 3 nations on another land mass of a similar size, with tech trading on, the civs on the former land mass would win out over the civs on the latter land mass almost every time.

Really? Do you mean that the two continents are in competition with one another or a free for all. Because in a free for all, I would expect that the time that it takes to conquer the crowded continent is somewhat higher. Therefore, some of the resources that could have been invested in research are going to be invested in war. In a competition between two continents, the crowded continent starts with 5 times as many cities and less city upkeep in the long run. Not really a competition there, the crowded one has a big advantage. Although 15 civilisations cannot perfectly cooperate in research as there are not 15 parallel tech paths. (I'm assuming no teams here.) So even with perfect cooperation, it might be hard for the crowded continent.

I also guess that all of this depends a bit on the room for expansion. If the 15 civilisations can expand decently, then the 3 will have too much room which cannot be used in the early game. This is likely to be true in the America vs Euroasia example, so therefore the American continent will have a slower start.

Of course what I meant with Land = Power is that eventually the size of your land largely determines the amount of research points and hammers that your civilisation generates. That hammers and research points aren't all that is important is however also true.

[IAM]

Originally Posted by Lord Parkin

Hmm, I tend to find that the ability to trade technologies with a large number of civs is far more valuable than having a large amount of land to settle. But then again, that's probably just me speaking from familiarity with multiplayer. I guess the AI isn't as wiley as human players, so perhaps the ability to trade technologies doesn't give it as much of an advantage.

In multiplayer amongst seasoned players, if you put 15 nations on one land mass and 3 nations on another land mass of a similar size, with tech trading on, the civs on the former land mass would win out over the civs on the latter land mass almost every time.

I have had similar experiences as Lord Parkin in single player. On huge maps with 18 civs a crowded continent will weed out a few weak AIs but more AI = more different paths researched and more opportunities for trade. Whether it's me or a couple of AIs stuck on a continent with just a few other players they tech very slow. My typical game plan is to get to optics and tech trade with the larger group of players even then caravels will somtimes show up before I can tech to optics.

When I have found 2 AIs on a land mass for instance they are too backwards to be a problem. Their longbowmen don't hold up well to my riflemen That's pretty typical with few exceptions.

[Lord Parkin]

Originally Posted by Roland Johansen

Really? Do you mean that the two continents are in competition with one another or a free for all. Because in a free for all, I would expect that the time that it takes to conquer the crowded continent is somewhat higher.

Probably overall, yes. But the time it takes to win each war is considerably less, because there is less land you need to take to eliminate a nation. And of course, with factors like war weariness making drawn-out wars very costly, shorter wars have considerable advantages.

Originally Posted by Roland Johansen

Not really a competition there, the crowded one has a big advantage. Although 15 civilisations cannot perfectly cooperate in research as there are not 15 parallel tech paths. (I'm assuming no teams here.)

Of course - you will likely get a few smaller groups that share research between themselves. But this is still more advantageous than a continent with 2-3 people, because you have no guarantee that any one person will be someone you can easily work with. With 15 people, you can choose your allies much more easily.

Originally Posted by Roland Johansen

I also guess that all of this depends a bit on the room for expansion. If the 15 civilisations can expand decently, then the 3 will have too much room which cannot be used in the early game. This is likely to be true in the America vs Euroasia example, so therefore the American continent will have a slower start.

Indeed, too much land is not a bonus if there aren't enough civs to utilise it in the early game.

Originally Posted by Roland Johansen

Of course what I meant with Land = Power is that eventually the size of your land largely determines the amount of research points and hammers that your civilisation generates. That hammers and research points aren't all that is important is however also true.

I wouldn't say that hammers and research points aren't all that important - they definitely are. But trading groups and alliances are also important factors to consider, alongside land and power.

Originally Posted by IAM

When I have found 2 AIs on a land mass for instance they are too backwards to be a problem. Their longbowmen don't hold up well to my riflemen That's pretty typical with few exceptions.

Yeah, that's pretty typical in my single player games with the AI as well. 2-3 civs isolated on a land mass will tend to become considerably backward compared to the rest of the world as the game progresses. (And of course, this is even more pronounced when it's just 1 civ isolated by themselves.)

[oggylufc]

Read this forum for years and downloaded many maps,mods etc.

However I recently downloaded the 2.7(I think) version of Rise Of Mankind, when played there was no interface? Then all of a sudden I lost my starting settler and warrior. They both turned into the invisible man, after a quick panic I uninstalled the new version. Now everytime I try and start any game my units are invisible, rendering the game unplayable.

I'm a bit of an addict on Civ and would be gutted if the game is effectively dead on my Pc.

Any help would be very helpful.

Cheers.

[Roland Johansen]

Originally Posted by oggylufc

Read this forum for years and downloaded many maps,mods etc.

However I recently downloaded the 2.7(I think) version of Rise Of Mankind, when played there was no interface? Then all of a sudden I lost my starting settler and warrior. They both turned into the invisible man, after a quick panic I uninstalled the new version. Now everytime I try and start any game my units are invisible, rendering the game unplayable.

I'm a bit of an addict on Civ and would be gutted if the game is effectively dead on my Pc.

Any help would be very helpful.

Cheers.

Rise of Mankind has its own special section of the forum where everything related to this mod can be discussed. As the problems first arose when you installed this mod, I would suggest asking for help there. It's the most likely place to get useful answers.

My first guess would be that you didn't fully uninstall the mod. But it's hard to guess what part still remains where. If you installed the mod in the customassets folder, then you could try renaming this folder into customassetsold and then restarting the game. The game will recreate a new empty customassets folder the way it was before you installed a mod there.

Oh, and welcome to civfanatics!

[ori]

@oggylufc:

Welcome to CFC

my first guess is that you toggled the bare map mode on - one of the buttons on top of the minimap (lower right hand corner) turns it off again

[oggylufc]

Thank you Roland. I will do just that.

Hope I can get it working again.

Do you know if there is a way of clearing everything so it goes back to the original settings?

Also if you lose the interface is there any way of getting it back with a key shortcut?

[Wulture]

If a religion has spread to one of your cities, you put that into your state religion and then loose that city, and you dont have your state religion on any of your cities, does it force you to change state religion?

[Roland Johansen]

Originally Posted by oggylufc

Thank you Roland. I will do just that.

Hope I can get it working again.

Do you know if there is a way of clearing everything so it goes back to the original settings?

Also if you lose the interface is there any way of getting it back with a key shortcut?

If it is as Ori says 'the bare map mode', then you can go to the normal map mode by pressing CRTL + B while in the main map view of the game or by pressing the third button above the minimap in the main map view of the game. However that doesn't fit with your description of no interface.

If there are remnants of the mod remaining in your customassets folder then do as I said in my previous post: rename the customassets folder so that civ doesn't recognise it anymore. Civ will create a new empty customassets folder once you start a new game. Renaming the folder instead of deleting it has the advantage that it is reversible. If you are really sure that you don't want the contents of that folder anymore, then you can also delete it.

[VollAufRisiko]

Just got the game, havent played Civ since CivII, so I am out dated.

It seems to me that my first city takes FOREVER to get from 1 to 2 population. I am generating a fair surplus (getting my first population working wheat with a farm), but the food bar takes forever to fill. By the time I get 3-4 cities they seem to grow from 1 to 2 really fast.

Is there a reason for this?

[Supr49er]

A city will not grow while it's building a Settler or Worker.

[Roland Johansen]

Originally Posted by VollAufRisiko

Just got the game, havent played Civ since CivII, so I am out dated.

It seems to me that my first city takes FOREVER to get from 1 to 2 population. I am generating a fair surplus (getting my first population working wheat with a farm), but the food bar takes forever to fill. By the time I get 3-4 cities they seem to grow from 1 to 2 really fast.

Is there a reason for this?

Originally Posted by Supr49er

A city will not grow while it's building a Settler or Worker.

All surplus food generated will be invested in workers or settlers (at a rate of 1 = 1 ) when you're building these units. The food bar will not grow.

[6K Man]

Originally Posted by VollAufRisiko

Just got the game, havent played Civ since CivII, so I am out dated.

It seems to me that my first city takes FOREVER to get from 1 to 2 population. I am generating a fair surplus (getting my first population working wheat with a farm), but the food bar takes forever to fill. By the time I get 3-4 cities they seem to grow from 1 to 2 really fast.

Is there a reason for this?

If you are building a Settler or a Worker, surplus food is treated as hammers and added to production. So a city won't grow when building Workers/Settlers.

Otherwise - if you are playing Marathon speed, cities grow slowly. A Granary will speed up growth and make Slavery-rushing a lot more economical, too.

[VollAufRisiko]

Ah! That makes so much sense. that would explain why I heard it is a good idea to wait until you are at pop 2 to build those units.

So at the start of the game what do you build in your first city then? A Warrior?

Is it worth waiting til 3 population before making a settler/worker?

Which do you build first, settler or worker?

[dalamb]

One point of view, common but not universal, is that if you have a 3+ food tile within the first ring of the Fat Cross, you should start building a worker immediately. By the time you research an appropriate worker tech or two, the worker has lots to do that will make your city get better faster -- fast enough to make up for the turns of non-growth.

If I start with Fishing and seafood I often build a workboat first; the city grows while you build it and grows even faster when it improves the seafood tile.

[Roland Johansen]

Originally Posted by VollAufRisiko

Ah! That makes so much sense. that would explain why I heard it is a good idea to wait until you are at pop 2 to build those units.

So at the start of the game what do you build in your first city then? A Warrior?

Is it worth waiting til 3 population before making a settler/worker?

Which do you build first, settler or worker?

First of all, there is no ultimate best way that works for every game.

That being said, I often start with a worker or workboat because improved terrain is sooooo much better than unimproved terrain that it is very important to start improving terrain right away. Then I improve food resources to quickly grow my city to a size close to the happiness cap while building units or a barracks. Then I start building settlers (and some military units) in rapid succession.

Note that it can be valuable to start building settlers earlier when there is a prime settling spot that is hotly contested.

An unimproved size 1 capital will typically provide 4-5 hammers per turn for settler building, an unimproved size 2 capital will typically provide 5-6 hammers per turn for settler building, a fully improved size 5 capital will typically provide 15+ hammers per turn for settler building (food and hammers added together).

With bronze working, workers can also chop forests to help produce stuff. A single worker who is constantly chopping forests adds about 5-7,5 hammers per turn to the city (on average, before or after mathematics). It's of course not a renewable resource of hammers so you will run out of forests sooner or later. However, it's often better to get these hammers earlier in the game instead of later.

[VollAufRisiko]

Isnt it useful to have one of the city population working in the forest? If I clear cut my whole fat cross how would I get any production until I research something that lets me build workshops (is that the right one?)

[IAM]

Originally Posted by VollAufRisiko

Isnt it useful to have one of the city population working in the forest? If I clear cut my whole fat cross how would I get any production until I research something that lets me build workshops (is that the right one?)

Mining is an early tech that allows mines, obviously, on hills and on other tiles if copper, iron etc. is on the tile. They are great for early continued production.

[VollAufRisiko]

Oh yeah, overlooked mines. My capital city on the game I am trying now just so happens to not have any hills in its fat cross. So, in that case (which I assume is unusual) I would need to keep some forests for early production?

Also, I remember reading that Jungle squares are bad and to clear them from your cities as fast as possible. I did that in my game (my home town was half covered with jungle) but I don't understand why that is so important. Is it just to get to the grassland tiles?

EDIT: Also, what does the "Chieftain" title over to the left under my name mean?

[IAM]

Jungle tiles increase unhealth in a city and reduce the tile by 1 .

Watermills are another production possibility. They're not as early as mines though and really don't appeal to me until later techs increase the bonuses.

If your city has no hills how about a great person farm or cottage the tiles? You can whip, slavery, for production.