Civ Old Timer Has Questions About Civ3... Answer Them Please!

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I see that the article itself is a bit dated and rather incomplete. However, my strategy on Monarch already emulates a lot of what is said, and as such perhaps the climb to Emperor won't be so problematic anyway: I focus on building units early on, have at least two settler pumps, sword or horsie rush, early wars until I have a big, safe landmass. Culture building only when strictly necessary, wonders only when strictly necessary, early switch to Republic and aggressive use of the luxury slider. All of that was more or less covered by me, but I think on Emperor I should be more aggressive, to make sure there are no powerful AI's near me, just buffer and rump AI's between me and the other big AI's.

 

[Spoonwood]

I will usually upgrade units. I don't build Leo's though.

 

[Lanzelot]

Also, an important question: when you're big and late, when you have to upgrade your Muskets to Infantry, for instance (I wait until I can have INF), do you upgrade manually and prioritize Leo's, or do you simply produce new units to replace the old??

Reading your comments here, I get the impression, that your style is more the "warmongering style" as opposed to the "peaceful builder style", correct?

In that case I would say: you need neither Muskets nor Infantry... If you are attempting to win a game in warmonger style, you want to attack, not defend! So my advise is: up to Monarch level, you don't need any defensive units. The AI is so incompetent, that it won't get a chance to attack you, if you play your trumps right. Just build Horsemen (or Knights), and conquer the world. On Emperor/Demigod, you need perhaps a handful of defenders to protect the valuable attackers against the occasional counter-attack, or to protect an important choke-point or a vulnerable flank.

(I'm currently playing a Demigod game, where I built 4-5 Pikemen and the rest of my army consists of ~30 Knights, no artillery-type units. Artillery was not necessary here, as I managed to attack, before my opponents had Feudalism (or I managed to disconnect their iron, before they were able to build a significant number of Pikemen), which means, my Knights are up against Spearmen and there is no need of artillery. True, I lose a Knight here and there, but replacing the lost Knight (70s) once in a while still takes less resources than if I had to build upfront let's say a force of 10 Trebuchets (300s). Plus consider the two factors, that these extra Trebs would cost me 20gpt in maintenance, and would slow down my advance. In a Republic, speed is the most important factor. You need to break down the AI's resistance, before a) the AI can build many defenders, and b) your war weariness reaches an annoying level. BTW: if you want to compare your approach with the result of that of other people, you can play the same game: it's COTM 164 (Inca, Demigod, but very good start position for the human player, so it plays more like Emperor than Demigod). You just download the 4000 BC .sav file, play it according to the GOTM rules until end of September and submit it. The download site, upload site and the rules of the GOTM competition are available on the GOTM homepage.)

On Deity and Sid, of course you need more defenders. But it depends on the terrain and the strategic situation. E.g. on an archipelago map, with no safe crossing before Navigation, I may need no defenders even on Sid, because the AI simply can't get to me...

But leaving the question of whether or not you need defenders aside, that still leaves the question of whether to upgrade or replace your attackers. And my advise is to always upgrade. Going back to the above-mentioned Demigod game: more than 20 of those 30 Knights were upgraded from Horsemen. Once I reached Chivalry, I set research to 0%, and then upgraded all Horsemen, while my core cities were busy building important improvements like Marketplaces, Aqueducts, Barracks or Courthouses. Basically, while my shields went into civilian build-up, my gold went into the military, so I was able to continue warmongering, while at home a peaceful build-up phase was going on... (And I had already earlier upgraded all my military police 3/3 Warriors to Swordsmen - and later Medieval Infantry - and used them to capture the first few cities of a direct neighbor, while my Horsemen force was still in preparation. This is what allows early wars, while at the same time not neglecting your civilian build-up too much. To give you a rough estimate of what I mean by "early": in this particular game I switched from Despo to Republic around 1400 BC, and now it is 200 BC, and I have already eliminated 2 of the 3 AIs that share the same continent with me. Attack on the last AI has already started, and I also fomented a few wars on the other continent, so the AIs will already deplete their stock of units against each other, before I will begin my invasion of the other continent...

Upgrading is definitely the way to go, if you want a big army quickly. In some situations (e.g. shield-scarce start locations) it may even be best to do the "disconnect-connect" tactic to build up a large army quickly, because it is the best way to use both, your shields and your commerce, for producing units: you have a warrior and 6 workers on your iron hill. Every turn, the warrior pillages the iron, then you set all cities to produce Horsemen, and then the 6 workers connect the iron again. Interturn, whenever a city completes a Horseman, you zoom into it and upgrade it to Knight immediately.

With regards to Leonardo's: I don't prioritize it. If some nearby AI builds it for me, I'm happy, but if not, it's no big deal. And most often, when I play for a military victory, the game is over, before any AI manages to research Invention and build that 600s wonder... So waiting for Leonardo's would only slow down my victory date...

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Good, great advice. And I'll try playing the COTM. I'm surprised there's still a COTM in 2023!

 

[justanick]

Universal Suffrage is still a waste of time: I forgot the exact numbers, but it decreases War Weariness by like 2%. In most cities, this is lost due to rounding effects, so for all practical purposes, the Universal Suffrage has zero effect... Complete waste of time.

Frauenwahlrecht (Civ3) – CivWiki

wiki.civforum.de

It decreases war weariness by exactly 1 which at size 10 equals 10%. Given how abundant production can be by that time and that we are talking about large or huge maps the choice to build this wonder may well be (barely) rational.

Also, an important question: when you're big and late, when you have to upgrade your Muskets to Infantry, for instance (I wait until I can have INF), do you upgrade manually and prioritize Leo's, or do you simply produce new units to replace the old?? Thanks.

I am very much in favour of disbanding the old units and building new units from scratch. But there are exceptions. The most important exception is knights to cavalry. For only 30 gold this is a good deal and time is of the essence then.

One way to think of it is how many turns worth of your economic output you need to invest. 90 gold for musket to infantry is expensive. But building a new infantry may take a core metro only 2 turns at a time when you need to worry about what to do with your abundance of production anyway. By that time i often build units just to disband them somewhere else for the shields. That is not very efficient, but it is more efficient than building wealth and using the cash for cash-rushing.

Upgrading is definitely the way to go, if you want a big army quickly.

If there is a rush, then yes.

Personally i prefer a more research-minded gameplay. How do i optimize the time of entering the modern age or completing the last tech needed for the space race?

 

[Lanzelot]

It decreases war weariness by exactly 1 which at size 10 equals 10%

Wow, then it is indeed slightly more useful than I thought! Though size-10 cities are usually not the problem, when it comes to happiness -- the big metros make the most trouble, when war weariness kicks in. Level-1 is usually not a problem: if you capture an additional lux resource in your conquest, it takes care of that. Level-2, however, is more annoying. In a size-10 city, it means 5 of your citizens become unhappy, Universal Sufferage reduces it to 4, which is quite handy. However, in the metros, where it really matters, the effect is still neglectable, e.g. in a size-20, 10 citizens are unhappy, and US reduces that to 9. That's not that big a deal...
I still think, it is better to invest those 600 shields into 7 additional Cavalry, which will enable you to end your war more quickly, before war weariness even becomes a problem in the first place...
I have played games under Republic, where I conquered the whole world without ever getting more than Level-1 unhappiness for a dozen turns or so (until a favorable peace deal was agreed, or - even better- the source of the war weariness eliminated... ).

Regarding your other points: you are right. What I said, applies only to quick military games (Domination or Conquest). For other VCs of course other strategies need to be applied, as you point out. For example, if I aim for a science victory, I also do not keep a large army that drains my economy with up-keep and then invest further gold into it by doing mass upgrades... The gold is then better invested into research. And when going for a 100K victory, I also build units in the core cities and disband them for shields in the corrupt outer towns to get libs & temples more quickly. But as I said in the beginning: I had the impression, MPorciusCatoCivver's questions were aimed mainly at how to play the warmonger style successfully, so I described what I think is best for a quick military victory...!

 

[justanick]

Level-2, however, is more annoying.

It is, but with police stations it is only 25%. So then it takes level 3 or 120 ww points to become a real annoyance. This equals losing 60 units.

 

[Theov]

I build wonders that dont expire and when I dont need more military units. (Which is ... almost never)
I love Smiths, Copernicus and Newtons, Hoover Dam and some others.
They should be seen as luxuries. Something you want, but shouldnt need; so they should not be a priority.

The most difficult part, still, is the opening game. Perfecting the start is what makes a difference.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

The essential boils down to this: Newton's and Copernicus' if you're seeking to build Science, Templars perhaps if you need the military, Smith's, Hoover Dam and ToE absolutely essential in the Industrial Age. Sistine and JS Bach's essential if you need the happiness.

 

[Spoonwood]

The essential boils down to this: Newton's and Copernicus' if you're seeking to build Science, Templars perhaps if you need the military, Smith's, Hoover Dam and ToE absolutely essential in the Industrial Age. Sistine and JS Bach's essential if you need the happiness.

No great wonders are essential for the human player to build. On Sid level, you would struggle hard to get any.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

I know Sid is very hard lol. That's why I never ever played on it. I would be content with mastering Emperor the next months, then trying Deity and that's all. But Sid is impossibly hard.

 

[Theov]

The essential boils down to this: Newton's and Copernicus' if you're seeking to build Science, Templars perhaps if you need the military, Smith's, Hoover Dam and ToE absolutely essential in the Industrial Age. Sistine and JS Bach's essential if you need the happiness.

It's not just science.
Newts and Copes allow you to lower the slider, making more money for units available.

 

[CKS]

I know Sid is very hard lol. That's why I never ever played on it. I would be content with mastering Emperor the next months, then trying Deity and that's all. But Sid is impossibly hard.

Sid is not impossibly hard, exactly. I'm definitely not an elite player, but I've got a bunch of Sid wins. The sneaky tricks used to win are just different than on other difficulties.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Yeah I've seen it. The 200+ unit AI trick where you take a city, gift to a neutral AI without ROP with your foe, take another while waiting for the huge AI army to teleport, and so on, until you make the AI army vanish, as well as things like building outposts to get your atillery and mobile units to attack core AI cities in one turn.

I think this is all unbearably gamey. I know the AI has tons of advantages on Deity and Sid, still, perhaps only some of these tricks are justifiable on Deity due to high difficulty; that's why I also prefer to play on Monarch and Emperor without most tricks, because I think they're gamey, gamey, gamey. Really, lol.

It's not that hard to defeat an AI rush on Emperor, btw. All you gotta do is turtle, lure the AI with an ungarrisoned town, funnel them, bash them with offensive units, then hide, then have them attack a walled city on a hill with barracks and a 6+ pikemen garrison. All of this works neatly so far on my two Emperor games. Then counterattack. You don't need most gamey tricks, *yet*.

 

[CKS]

Yeah I've seen it. The 200+ unit AI trick where you take a city, gift to a neutral AI without ROP with your foe, take another while waiting for the huge AI army to teleport, and so on, until you make the AI army vanish, as well as things like building outposts to get your atillery and mobile units to attack core AI cities in one turn.

I think this is all unbearably gamey.

Actually, I've not done these things. I just play on archipelago and let the AI drown in unit support, I leave my capitol undefended to draw attackers to it, and I don't invade anybody else until I've got an army to hide under. Still, I don't usually play at Sid. (I just hope one day to have the most games in the Civ3 HOF, and a lot of Sid slots are empty, so I've been trying to fill some of them lately.)

 

[Spoonwood]

Actually, I've not done these things. I just play on archipelago and let the AI drown in unit support, I leave my capitol undefended to draw attackers to it, and I don't invade anybody else until I've got an army to hide under. Still, I don't usually play at Sid. (I just hope one day to have the most games in the Civ3 HOF, and a lot of Sid slots are empty, so I've been trying to fill some of them lately.)

Histographic losses are one way to get your numbers up quickly. They can take under 10 minutes. I managed a Large Monarch loss, and lower levels (I think it will post on the next update). Emperor level though I've gotten destroyed at when I tried it (just once).

 

[Spoonwood]

I haven't built a temple in a very long time ... am I right that they are almost always useless except for cultural victories?

Assuming that we will change the luxury slider, I think they can be useful for small amounts of time.

Imagine that you have a large early capital, say 5-6, but your inner ring cities are all size 2 or 3, and most have rivers. Suppose we need 30% luxuries to keep the capital from rioting. But, we don't need that much use of the luxury slider to keep the other inner ring cities from rioting. Thus, a temple in the capital only might allow for the luxury slider to drop by 10%. I will guess that the temple upkeep cost could get paid for by the capital itself. Other cities might also have enough commerce to produce more beakers or gold from lowered use of the luxury slider. For research purposes, thus a temple in a core city significantly larger than the other core cities may have benefit. If planning never to go to war, and not having access to libraries for a while, then the temple may make sense. It could also make sense if already or soon at war in some declare war immediately on someone variant, where you don't need to attack them for a bit, and thus you need/want to self-research early technology for military usage. Except, you have to already have enough military to handle incoming AI units. Also, this sort of situation probably consists of one where the capital has no food bonus at all, but can have 10 shields per turn at size 5. There do exist a fair number of starts with 4 bonus grasslands or other productive tiles with decent food.

But, if all core cities end up about the same size, just using the luxury slider might fairly equally affect all cities. In such a case, all inner core cities would need a temple. If never going to war, that's fine. Build the temples then of course if you don't have libraries and can't use more workers or settlers instead (you probably can still use more settlers or workers... at least some inner ring cities can use granaries if you ask me). But if planning to go to war, then sinking 300 - 480 shields into temples makes no sense. Suppose you had 4 cities for units, and 2 of those for catapults. 10 archers, 4 spearmen, and 6 catapults may be a secure stack of doom. I might prefer more catapults. But either way, that may be about the same shield cost of all the temples for the inner ring cities. So, I can't see how temples would make sense for all inner ring cities, since the luxury slider, I think, probably affects them all almost equally and the luxury slider is similarly effective.

As I think you know, temples in highly corrupt areas are a joke, unless you're likely to hit the hard coded 512 city limit. Settlers or workers make more sense. Temples in all inner ring cities cost a lot of shields. Why build a temple instead of a library? The library will help citizens research and your empire probably can have a better position with more research early. A temple might help with commerce if choosing not to research at all early in some cities, but then it becomes even more clear that a market has more value than the temple. Eventually, inner ring cities also reach the same size. Then they would all need temples for the luxury slider to get lowered by their use. But, that many temples is likely equivalent shield wise to a stack of doom. Capture a luxury, and the temples use no longer might matter, and you end up with more unit support, if you don't mind taking a little time to lower the luxury slider. Or have some units around to maybe upgrade later and research and build up your other infrastructure first and see if you can trade for luxuries if you play a pangea map.

Temples probably have a lot of good use on an 80% archipelago map where you need to get to Navigation for a while and might have good cause to favor the builder style for a while. They might also have some uses on continent maps if you already have control of the 3 or 4 luxuries and you run a Monarchy and struggle to reach Navigation for a while. But why are you running a Monarchy? Because you are at war with everyone you meet on every turn? But then you can need units ready to go once you meet a bunch of them.

But on a pangea map or maybe 60% archipelago map where you can trade for many, if not all of the luxuries?

Temples probably can end up flipping cities on low levels often enough to seem worth it. I've seen it happen with just librarires. But since the AIs are low level, and you have some experience, why wait for a flip instead of capturing their cities? And again, what was the gain over having a library or market sooner? Probably not enough for any sort of general rule about temples.

I think another issue lies in that making temples don't easily fit strategic plans unless you strategize for a cultural victory. But, even for a 100k type game maybe Monarch and above, a lot of war can end up benefical for more cities to build culture. Build libraries and markets before war in a 100k game sounds right. Waiting for war to build temples doesn't sound as good, because then you'll wait on libraries elsewhere, end up slower to rails or replacable parts (which may sound late to some HoF veterans for 100k games, but having Replaceable Parts is very powerful for 100k games, as I learned in my 20k Huge Sid game, where I had to sell off cultural buildings to prevent winning by 160,000 culture).

 

[justanick]

Temples probably can end up flipping cities on low levels often enough to seem worth it. I've seen it happen with just librarires. But since the AIs are low level, and you have some experience, why wait for a flip instead of capturing their cities? And again, what was the gain over having a library or market sooner? Probably not enough for any sort of general rule about temples.

The offensive use of flipping hardly is worth it. But helping in preventing flips may be worthwhile, or at least less unreasonable.

 

[Lanzelot]

There may be rare cases, where you want to get a resource into your borders quickly, but can't do it with a settler, e.g. because the resource is in the mountains (iron, coal, diamonds) or out at sea (whale). And a library is not worth it, because the town is completely corrupt anyway.

Or you want to "steal" a resource from a neighbor. Both of you have settled on either side of said resource, and you need some culture to get the tile into your borders.

 

[Fergei]

Cultural boundaries can be invaluable in maintaining a link between different parts of your empire rather than having to cross another AIs territory. I also like ensuring my borders expand quickly as it can be the difference between the AI signposting their intent to attack you by invading (and you having a turn to respond) and them ambushing your city and capturing it immediately following a war declaration and having you right on the backfoot. When the AI is warring amongst themselves sneaking in with new settlements and quick Temples can quickly flip cities that have changed hands.

I fully accept Temples have limited values in default settings when going for a military victory because if you are strong enough to start a war you are strong enough to finish it.

Its almost like one part of the development team did some good work with culture and the game balance / difficulty settings part of the development team inadvertantly destroyed the relevance of it. It kind of went onto the bonfire along with non-Republic government options, military units arising from The Wheel, Paratroopers, Coastal Fortress, everything to do with Espionage, MPPs etc etc.

Its a superb game but so much of it seems like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. So much of the content only becomes viable when you tinker with the editor.