Regent TICKS ME OFF!! (long)

[murewa]

or warrior then granary to produce the next three settlers early.

 

[Japher]

I ussually irrigate the land around my first town to get a good pop. rate, crank out settlers (ussually have to put the governor on to manage their moods), trade a lot (so turn down tech slider and buy, buy, buy), make your second town a settler popper too, then begin to switch settler then warrior, continue to trade... You should be fine... If not keep restarting until they plant you on a flood plain w/lots of wheat.

 

[Padma]

murewa -good points in your reply: we read the post differently. We'll just have to wait for ticklesivory to come back and tell us his intent.

My only point of disagreement is the "wargame" aspect. First, I will admit I don't play computer wargames (by my definition ). I can't even give you the names of any. My wargaming days were back when it was all miniatures, and board-style games. To me, a wargame is a game with realistic (or at least internally consistant and balanced, for SF / Fantasy) stats for the units involved, detailed, realistic rules for things like Line-of-Sight, movement, firepower, etc., and in which the object of the game is the military confrontation.

In Civ3, war is abstracted, almost to the point of being left out. There is very little reality left in it. "Warrior", "Swordsman", "Tank", are all little more than symbols for the abstract forces we move around the map. The only link to reality they have is that you have to have certain technologies to build specific units. There are no real tactical decisions to make, other than the obvious, broad ones, such as "don't attack across a river".

War, in Civ3, is just an extension of Diplomacy. Of equal importance to the military actions of the troops are the effects felt "at home": the drain on the tresury, the war-weariness of the people, etc. In a true wargame, these are inconsequential; the best tactician (usually) wins.

That's why I don't consider Civ to be a wargame.

 

[murewa]

padma:

we really are two sides of a coin. just between the two of us there's no way to settle this 'wargame/non-wargame" aspect of Civ3. let's just drop it. i call a truce on this issue.

and good luck ticklesivory. do a !

 

[Padma]

murewa: Truce!

 

[ticklesivory]

Thanks for all the comments and them some guys! ; ) I am going to back up to Warlord and give it a shot until I learn some more strategy. To think...this game is about strategy...go figure! Anyway -- my feminine opinion on this game (uh huhm) - is that it can be either a war game or a civilization building game, depending upon how you play it. I have played a couple of games where I didn't have one war. Boring. I tend to want to take over the world. (What woman doesn't?) So, I tend to play it for the fighting aspect. It reminds me a little of the table game Risk - which I used to play in college...for hours at a time with friends. And that definitely is a war game. But, I think arguments could be made for both sides. Backing up to Warlord....for the time-being! : )

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Fighting is good. It's almost a requirement that you'll have to fight a war against a neighbor early on, especially as you go up in levels and the AI expands faster.

 

[murewa]

Truce it is Padma.

ticklesivory:

there's another way to start playing at regent after just a few games of chieftain. how? spend more time on the forums than actually playing it. read and read a lot. read a lot of strategies and little known facts then mold it into your current game. Civ3 has a lot of features small and large that vastly affects your game. also ask a lot of questions (just don't spam a lot - the moderators here remind me of my officers in ROTC [j/k])

i did this and tried playing Emperor but failed. I dropped the level to Regent and I find it has become too easy for me (I did learn a lot from that failed Emperor bid). Maybe I'll start Monarch level soon.

 

[Barker]

I have always noticed that shields and commerce are the key early in the game. I always look for he most profitable 2-3 tiles (since your city never grows beyond 3 during settler flood) in my first city radius, and build mine/road on each. This really helps if there is wheat, cows or fish nearby. If I have none of these specials, I may use one of the first tiles for irrigation.

I can usually pump out warrior/warrior/settler/spearman(depending on civ)/settler if I manage it right. On occasion, I may add 1 turn of wealth in-between if my growth is too slow.

The one thing that I failed to realize when I moved up in difficulty were the happiness restricitons. I always used all my military to explore for the first 10-15 turns, and then I'd garrison some units later. In regent, your city falls into disorder after the third citizen if there are no lux/temples, so you have to garrison the second warrior built.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

barker, forget irrigation unless on plains or flood plains. the grassland tiles already give two food and can't give more in despotism

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
barker, forget irrigation unless on plains or flood plains. the grassland tiles already give two food and can't give more in despotism

It surprises me but there are lots of players who don't realize that. Of course, I guess it's harder to notice that if one automates their workers and never zoom in on the cities to see what tiles are being worked. Unless the grassland tile has a bonus like wheat, grassland irrigation while under despotism is a waste of workers' time and also means a loss of shields. Very bad combination--in chess it would be the equivalent of loss of tempos and material.

I have, every now and then, worked on some ideas and writing regarding the importance of understanding shield production in Civ3. Everything in the game can be related to the production of shields. When one begins to see it that way, it has important effects on how one views city prodution and military strategy.

 

[murewa]

Lt. 'Killer' M.:

just a quick follow-up.

a grassland with wheat produces 3 food in despot. i've confirmed this and it conflicts with the 2-food-only rule in despot. Even the Civilopedia preserves that rule. Weird thing is that wheat produces +2 food bonus. So why do you get 3 food and not 2 or 4?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

wait one.... grassland with wheat gives three?????

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by murewa
Lt. 'Killer' M.:

just a quick follow-up.

a grassland with wheat produces 3 food in despot. i've confirmed this and it conflicts with the 2-food-only rule in despot. Even the Civilopedia preserves that rule. Weird thing is that wheat produces +2 food bonus. So why do you get 3 food and not 2 or 4?

Bonus resource effect, it'll override the despotic cap some. That's why starts with bonus resources are so desirable.

So by the math, grassland +2 and wheat +2 = 4 food. Minus the one food loss due to corruption of despotism = 3 food.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

and cattle is +2 +1 and gives +1 +1.......

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

OK, from civopedia:



so it is correct here....

note that irrigated floodplain only gives three food, too!

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Gastric you beat me to it

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
OK, from civopedia:



so it is correct here....

note that irrigated floodplain only gives three food, too!

Which is also why it is a fool's errand to mine hills when under despotism. Huge waste of worker turns.

 

[murewa]

uhh... thanks Gastric Reflux. I knew it wasn't a bug but I did not know how to explain it either. And I made a mistake on the Civilopedia - it actually explains it already.

And I quote:
"In addition, any city production which produces more than two food, shields, or commerce in a despotic government instead produces one less"

my bad...

EDIT: sorry people you have to read this rule 3 times in under 5 minutes. but maybe you need to...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Gastirc, if you have woods or mined plains it is a waste to mine hills. Or, especially if you have bonus grassland. But if you only have fllodplains and normal grassland.......