• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

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

I agree with the experts opinions above. My only addition concerns when one is playing a Religious civ. The cheaper temples can be very useful for the border pop tactics mentioned by @Fergei and Lanzelot. @Spoonwood 's calculations about shields spent will change slightly, when Temples are so cheap.

Even when playing a Religious civ, I don't build Cathedrals or Colosseums, unless I'm specifically aiming for a 100K cultural victory.

When playing non-Religious civs, I prefer the Library for all the reasons listed above.
 
A lot of the guidance is very situational. There's not much that should be a one-size-fits all.

Take this example from a vanilla Conquests game:



I haven't used the slider yet, while in Despotism, and have made copious use of entertainers and scientists and, as you can see, I've just entered Anarchy in readiness for Republic on turn 68, have plenty of cities, plenty of Workers and plenty of Warriors who are currently comfortably winning an early war for Wine against an AI civ. I've also defeated an early Barbarian raid and, had I not been in a such close proximity to the pesky AI, could have benefitted from a Temple instead of building Warriors in York, to help snag that awkward Cattle.

I'm definitely not recommending all of this for all situations, and you have to remember I generally tend to play on lowly Regent Huge Archipelagos, but I tend to play-it-as-it lands and don't try to go into a game with a predetermined mindset. There's a lot of reacting as well as planning that goes into an early Civ3 game, and sometimes reacting plays a larger part.
 
Temples can help to deal with the anarchy period in which neither the luxury slider nor military police are available for keeping cities from rioting. It is unlikely to be worth the hassle, but it should be mentioned for thoroughness.
 
had I not been in a such close proximity to the pesky AI, could have benefitted from a Temple instead of building Warriors in York, to help snag that awkward Cattle.

I think getting another settler out to utilize that other cattle would work out better than a temple.

Also, I would say that your empire is behind on workers. You have 3 bonus grasslands for York at size 4. That's 3 more shields that could get produced per turn. Someone will need to make those mines! Even if York produced mostly warriors at 10 shields, when it puts out settlers 6 shields per turn is better than 5 shields per turn, since it takes one less turn to produce a settler. And 7 shields still ends up better than 6, since if you could time the settler to happen at sufficient production, it could produce 7 shields, then 7 shields, then 8 shields, then 8 shields for 30 shields total for a settler, for example.
 
Yeah, I had zero doubt you'd make some nitpicks here spoony, LOL. 2 Workers per Town is fine, LOL. Yes, mines will be useful for York, but they're off to quickly road-up the Wine first in the newly settled town and ensure a quick and easy route to the front line. Hey, in a vacuum and a slightly different scenario, sure I could well have done that, amazing how it's always slightly different depending on the turn-by-turn scenario, eh. Yes, I could'a should'a would'a built my next new town above York, but that Wine came into view, as did all those rivers, so that got the priority. Remember, we're on turn 68 here.

I look forward to your reply that's you'd'a could'a would'a done this, that and the other marginally differently, in a vacuum. I'm surprised you didn't mention the town placement spacing, I mean, shock, horror, there's, like FOUR whole spaces between towns! :dunno: surely that practically demands a nit-pick, right?
 
In my current game myself and the Aztecs were fighting the English and I am Religious. I capture an English city and instead of fighting the English the Aztecs focus on pillaging every tile inside my Big Fat Cross, but outside of my cultural boundary (but inside England's remaining cultural boundaries). This creates dozens of turns of future workers moves and creates starvation in my captured city. A temple seemed a no brainer in these circumstances as the cheapest border expanding building. Border expands and Aztecs focus on heading towards English cities again.
 
Yeah, I had zero doubt you'd make some nitpicks here spoony, LOL. 2 Workers per Town is fine, LOL. Yes, mines will be useful for York, but they're off to quickly road-up the Wine first in the newly settled town and ensure a quick and easy route to the front line. Hey, in a vacuum and a slightly different scenario, sure I could well have done that, amazing how it's always slightly different depending on the turn-by-turn scenario, eh. Yes, I could'a should'a would'a built my next new town above York, but that Wine came into view, as did all those rivers, so that got the priority. Remember, we're on turn 68 here.

Of course, you can't change the past. And neither can I. So, please try not to read my comments as some sort of blame directed at you, but instead for ideas to consider for future games.

But to get the wines, I don't see why it would have failed to just found Hastings where it sits right now and not gone to war. I know that playing too aggressively has made for one of my strategic weaknesses. I'm very surprised that you, Buttercup, think going to war with just warriors on a huge map strategically advantegous (or maybe it was just an experiment or seemed so stupid that it might be fun or something). I also don't agree that luxuries end up more valuable than a grassland cow in a core city this early. Settlers and workers coming out in less turns and getting more city growth expands one's empire and gets core cities founded more quickly. It also gets more citizens working tiles, and corruption isn't bad.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the town placement spacing, I mean, shock, horror, there's, like FOUR whole spaces between towns! :dunno: surely that practically demands a nit-pick, right?

Well, why does wide city spacing get criticized? I find it inefficient, because it often results in unusable tiles or more tiles could get used during a more influential phase of the game. Where sit the unusable tiles in your cultural borders? The fat X crosses for your cities cover all land tiles in your empire in the screenshot (except for one hill, and that hill only ends up in your borders due to the free culture of the palace). I guess there existed tiles west of London not usable. But, you haven't had a large enough amount of time to get settlers out there, I think. So, on the contrary, your city placement does make sense to me.

That said, since you were expecting criticism I could say two things:

1. Southwest of London there exist a coast and a sea square in your cultural borders that you can't ever use. And another sea square that could get used if a city where the dyes sits got founded and that hypothetical city got a cultural expansion. That would make for 2 or three more tiles used sometime for commerce. Specifically, the spot where the forest sits would make for a good city spot for more commerce.

But, doing so would weaken the production and growth potential of Nottingham. The forest also could get chopped there before planting a city on that tile. And you don't have settlers for other spots yet. And you'd also have to think that the extra commerce would end up worth it longterm. Unless Nottingham ends up below size 3, I also find it unlikely that putting a city on the dyes spot would help your overall production. And of course, there exist many other tiles close to the capital that can get used if settlers got allowed to found cities outside of one's cultural borders. So, founding a city to increase the number of workable tiles already in the empire's cultural borders in this case probably ends up less powerful than plenty of other uses of settlers.

2. There exist a lot of hills northwest of York. So, I find it conceivable that CxC spacing up from York would make sense. But, again, it easily seems premature to conclude that.

So, on both points, I think it's too early to advise either as strategic, unlike getting a city out to use those cows.

And thus the spacing of your cities I think does make sense so far Buttercup.
 
Top Bottom