Without thinking very much I had always thought it was a white bag closed with a yellow/brown cord, the sort that might have held gold coins in some stereotypical olde worlde setting. Looking at it zoomed in now I do not think so.
Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Civrules
- Start date
ArchGhost
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 569
the background shows stacked (cut, roughly rectangular) paver stones.
In the foreground there appears to be a rope tied with a loop in it loosely draped across two corners of a rectangular stone (the loop is hooked at the back left corner and drapes over with a knot at the front left corner).
Easier to see in the larger civlopedia image.
In the foreground there appears to be a rope tied with a loop in it loosely draped across two corners of a rectangular stone (the loop is hooked at the back left corner and drapes over with a knot at the front left corner).
Easier to see in the larger civlopedia image.
NickGabben
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 185
If I'm gifted a city in a peace deal that's in the middle of the (same) opponent's territory, does it run the risk of flipping back without enough garrison or does it count as a conquered city (that can't flip back if you tick the corresponding checkbox in the settings)? I rarely accept offered cities unless they're part of a capitulation deal (and not always then either) not only because of this but also they're usually territorially off and hard to integrate in a meaningful manner. Perhaps you can manage to whip a couple of units if the city was big enough. "Best case scenario" it has the AP religion, so you just enabled the AP win for somebody else as well... 
Fool's Gold
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2023
- Messages
- 29
1.) At what point do Praetorians start needing siege support? Walls, axes, or are they good on their own until the defender gets longbows?
2.) Subjective question: is GLH worth considering if you have lots of coast on the same landmass (e.g. Pangaea with Natural shoreline), or is its main draw really the offshore islands / overseas land masses?
2.) Subjective question: is GLH worth considering if you have lots of coast on the same landmass (e.g. Pangaea with Natural shoreline), or is its main draw really the offshore islands / overseas land masses?
Last edited:
6K Man
Bureaucrat
1. IMO you plow through anything up to longbows/crossbows - that's the point of rushing to Praets.
2. I'd say yes. But having an island is really helpful.
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,036
Longbows are no problemo for CR3 Praets (unless they are protective).
You will lose some combats, sure..but at 45
cost (also a very good 2-pop whip) does that really hurt? 
Use your great generals for warlords (not medic) and CR3 should be very common. Both romans are IMP.
You will lose some combats, sure..but at 45
cost (also a very good 2-pop whip) does that really hurt? Use your great generals for warlords (not medic) and CR3 should be very common. Both romans are IMP.
floydmcw
Prince
Yes. AI-proposed tech buys are always the maximum possible price. If an AI offers to give you 20 gold for Physics, it's because they are very close to completing it. If the tech was worth 50 gold, the AI would not propose the deal.
This is different from a deal that you propose. Say the AI has 50 gold and you offer a tech. They will always offer 50 gold, even if it's worth much more (unless of course it's worth so much they could offer a tech of their own).
You can make a fair amount of gold by selling partial techs to the AI. If the scores display shows that an AI is 1 or 2 turns away from finishing a tech, you can sell it for around $50-$100.
Are you certain about this? I have always wondered, but I had thought there were occasions where an AI offered me a low deal like 20 gold for Physics but then did not get it soon. I could very easily be wrong, but I would like to know how certain you are of this.
floydmcw
Prince
I don't have proof (which would be code spelunking, I code for a living but have never read the cIV codebase). But I am reasonably certain because:
- Often the proposed deals are for less than the AI's total money.
- The deals are consistent with the time remaining to research the tech shown in the Score Display (when that's available).
- I thought one of the better players said so on this forum (obviously that's not proof and I can't point to a post).
ArchGhost
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 569
IMO no. This in keeping with the idea of a typical game mindset (meta settings and scripts) where the idea is to try to control as much inland area as possible and treat coastal locations as second choices.
GLH is one of the best wonders, if not THE best, as it is very early and almost always results in a net gain financially -- with enough cities that benefit from it. As trade routes are doubled with intercontinental cities, they are essentially worth roughly double same-continent coastal cities. The issue arises in just that though -- how many GLH-route-eligible cities are you going to settle on a Pangaea coast? 1/3rd of your empire? half? 3/4ths of it? Is it enough to offset their net cost? A typical game for me I end up at around an average of 12 cities (10-15 depending on map) before I call it quits on REX, as I love to play expand heavy. An empire of that size on immortal would need to have more than half the cities coastal to not tank with GLH route help, and it would STILL run at a net loss -- it just wouldn't be crashing.
Compare that to island cities, which not only break even (at least) with GLH routes, but they very often result in a net profit per city for commerce/expenses. They are always worth settling. In a similarly large empire as the previous example, any number of island cities would benefit me, and would only continue to as I added them, making the question of the ratio of coastal/noncoastal cities moot. Even just 2 island GLH cities can make the wonder worth it if you're staying smaller.
In that light I always evaluate my position on the map and weigh the 200h and tech detour against simply more expansion into the interior and faster BW/Pottery before considering GLH as a kneejerk gambit. If I'm on the coast and likely to stay heavily there (fenced in by a jungle belt/AIs, or many good seafood locations) I'll keep it in consideration until the turn benchmarks start coming up (want to shoot for 60-70 to get it done on Immortal to land it) and if there is too much else to do or deal with before snagging Sailing + Masonry I'll abort. Civ and leader picks can obviously tie into this just as much as the map can -- if you're on an AH only start as a non-AGRI/Hunting civ and are choked with forest, you don't have much incentive to go to the coast and tech in two directions at once, have you?
IIRC Natural Pangaea is the one with lots of little islands anyway right? The opposite of Solid? so it could be considerably more viable there, if only because it typically has 1-3 large regions of the map with tons of little islets sprinkled in very Archipelago-like chains, and if you start there you're money with the GLH. But just in a general land heavy script? I don't like it as much and would just ignore or go Mids instead.
NickGabben
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 185
Can you draw any conclusion based on who has made peace with whom in the event messages? If it says "Montezuma has made peace with Tokugawa.", is it more likely that one of them has had more success or is it just a coincidence who gets mentioned at which placeholder position?
Lennier
Emperor
Off the top of my head: 1) Religion. 2) How stacks work/siege works. 3) Maintenance mechanic (vs. corruption in earlier versions). 4) Attributes of leaders/different starting techs of different civs/unique buildings (unique units were introduced in Civ III; Civ III also had attributes assigned to civilizations rather than leaders.) 5) Espionage (in BtS).
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 14,036
From what i remember..
* no corruption, further away cities cost more upkeep but are otherwise fully functional.
* a much more detailed & in depth diplomacy system.
* builds & food have overflow which goes into the next step, previously excess was lost.
* production is bound to what you currently work on, switching builds means the new project starts at 0 and the previous one is queued.
* Great People can now start golden ages (and more).
+ what Lennier just posted
* no corruption, further away cities cost more upkeep but are otherwise fully functional.
* a much more detailed & in depth diplomacy system.
* builds & food have overflow which goes into the next step, previously excess was lost.
* production is bound to what you currently work on, switching builds means the new project starts at 0 and the previous one is queued.
* Great People can now start golden ages (and more).
+ what Lennier just posted
NickGabben
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 185
I think I had a very early release of Civ 3 (before any patches) because I remember planting and chopping forests infinitely (more or less, just limited by the number of workers). That way I could get around the horrible restriction of the ultra-corrupted, one-shield, far-away cities. Perhaps it took 20 workers to plant a forest and - I don't really remember - maybe 10 to chop it. And you could use one tile over and over again during a turn. So if you had like 120 workers per city you could produce things even far away from your capital. The hotkey for planting a forest was 'N' - straight from the drawer of useless knowledge!
When I bought the game again years later, this feature was gone.
... and to actually add to the list, in Civ 3:
* you could build colonies on remote resources that were outside cultural borders
* you needed saltpeter to build gunpowder units
When I bought the game again years later, this feature was gone.
... and to actually add to the list, in Civ 3:
* you could build colonies on remote resources that were outside cultural borders
* you needed saltpeter to build gunpowder units
R82
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 71
What Lennier, Fippy, and NickGabben posted. Also, pollution was mostly abolished (except for fallout) and replaced with health, and unhappiness no longer directly lead to cities becoming unproductive. They generally tried to remove the least popular aspects of Civ 3. On the other hand, in Civ 3, more cities usually meant more money, which was no longer the case in Civ 4. Some of the major changes and the reasoning behind them were explained in the afterword of the original Civ 4 manual.
All in all, IMO it worked out fairly well. One reason why I myself like Civ 4 so much is that I have the impression that every aspect of it was carefully thought through to interact well with every other aspect, more so than in Civ 3. (Except for castles and whales, both of which become available fairly late and then become obsolete not too much later.)
All in all, IMO it worked out fairly well. One reason why I myself like Civ 4 so much is that I have the impression that every aspect of it was carefully thought through to interact well with every other aspect, more so than in Civ 3. (Except for castles and whales, both of which become available fairly late and then become obsolete not too much later.)
For me, the single key difference between Civ 4 and its predecessors is the inability in Civ 4 (and its successors, from what I've been told) of any units to move across mountain terrain at any time during the game. This is a game breaker for me and the single reason I do not play any of the newer Civs beyond Civ 3.
Mountains effectively act as no-go zones, which in my experience during the numerous games I've played when I tried Civ 4, often results in a single mountain on an isthmus blocking my exploration of a continent beyond. Building ships in order to transport units around the obstacle is of course doable, but takes too long.
This is entirely unrealistic at this scale and I suspect Firaxis did this in order to enable them to better, or more easily, program the AI. There is no other plausible reason they would do this.
Last edited:
...how often does that actually happen? I play on scripts with extra mountains and I've rarely seen that occur.
I'm pretty certain it's more to provide clear variety between terrain types and interesting tactical puzzles. I'm very happy mountains are in the game.
To make this a productive post, I would add the increased yields of resources relative to other tiles, and terrain types affecting improvements more (e.g. no grassland mines) which significantly increases the impact of the map on the cities you build.
I'm pretty certain it's more to provide clear variety between terrain types and interesting tactical puzzles. I'm very happy mountains are in the game.
To make this a productive post, I would add the increased yields of resources relative to other tiles, and terrain types affecting improvements more (e.g. no grassland mines) which significantly increases the impact of the map on the cities you build.
vorlon_mi
Emperor
Similar threads
