Frequently Asked Questions

[Pipersong]

I automate my workers because there get to be too many. How do I keep them from going into enemy territory?

 

[carlosMM]

Pipersong: not, unless you tie them to the city (possible in PTW)

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Originally posted by Pipersong
I automate my workers because there get to be too many. How do I keep them from going into enemy territory?

You should micromanage instead of automating.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Can I start by saying what a superb thread this is. Great credit is due for the work that has gone in to not only developing the information but also the presentation of it. Thank you very much. However there is a small, but important, point I would like to make about the following entry:

"

"Does the city being filled with foreign citizens increase corruption? Should I try to water down the gene pool with my citizens?

Cities with foreigners are more prone to corruption, but mainly because they generally are not as happy as cities with only your population. This is especially true if you are at war with their motherland. The gene pool automatically gets watered down through time, you can speed it up by adding settlers or workers to a city (if you use workers, make sure that they are ones you made, not captured ones...captured workers will add a population point of their original nationality). Over time, you will assimilate the foreigners into your population."

This is not a game related comment. The concept of "water down the gene pool" is not meaningful. Mixing hitherto seperate populations enriches the gene pool. I think you are really talking about a cultural effect but this is difficult to find a good metaphor. Perhaps you should just say "increase the ratio of your own culture citizens".

I do not say this to be pedantic, but because the idea of watering down a gene pool seems to imply some concept of genetic perfection akin to discredited concepts of race. I am sure that is not what you meant, but it can be misconstrued (just reading it made me shudder) and its use reinforces people's misconceptions.

If anyone finds this controvertial please feel free to set up an OT thread and let me know, rather than cluttering this excellent thread.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Can I start by saying what a superb thread this is. Great credit is due for the work that has gone in to not only developing the information but also the presentation of it. Thank you very much. However there is a small, but important, point I would like to make about the following entry:

"

This is not a game related comment. The concept of "water down the gene pool" is not meaningful. Mixing hitherto seperate populations enriches the gene pool. I think you are really talking about a cultural effect but this is difficult to find a good metaphor. Perhaps you should just say "increase the ratio of your own culture citizens".

I do not say this to be pedantic, but because the idea of watering down a gene pool seems to imply some concept of genetic perfection akin to discredited concepts of race. I am sure that is not what you meant, but it can be misconstrued (just reading it made me shudder) and its use reinforces people's misconceptions.

If anyone finds this controvertial please feel free to set up an OT thread and let me know, rather than cluttering this excellent thread.

sorry to say, but in Civ 1 'perfect' pool of citizens is one without ANY foreigner - because that significanlty reduced the flip risk. Anything despisable because of racism in this stems from the prgrammers

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Foreigner is a cultural concept. There is nothing wrong with that concept in a gme representing aspects of human history. It's not the mechanics of the game I'm on about, just that one incorrect analogy.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Foreigner is a cultural concept. There is nothing wrong with that concept in a gme representing aspects of human history. It's not the mechanics of the game I'm on about, just that one incorrect analogy.

that question was posted just like that in the FAQ thread. Now, if someone who probably has English as a second or third language (same as me, my third, and it was I who typed that section of the FAQ straight from the thread) distrubs you that much when choosing a not-quite-fitting analogy - well then you need to grow a thicker skin IMHO.

That said: I canot change the FAQ anymore, and I wouldn't want to. Political correctness is one thing, being an ass about seeing malintent where ther obviously is none is another. Maybe if you PM Turner or Sirp they can help you.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Forget it. That's two responses you have given and you still haven't understood what I'm trying to say. PC is not in my vocabulary and I clearly stated that I did not see "malintent" in the item.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Ribannah
I have sent them an e-mail (no reply yet).

OK, it is clear now that they aren't ever going to answer my mail.

Meanwhile, there are more reports now that PTW 1.27 "UK" (as advertised by ATARI) is causing games to crash.

I have drawn my conclusions.

 

[mad-bax]

Ribannah:

Have you checked the registry? I had a problem which sounds the same as yours. If you look at the software keys under Infogrames in the program registry you may find that the PTW installation is pointing at the Civ3 installation instead of the CIV3PTW intallation. If so you will need to change it.

Just to be clear. use the run command to run regedit and open the Software keys for Infogrames. Make sure the install path ends in CIV3PTW. If it doesn't, right click and modify it so it does.

The other obvious thing to check is that you have installed the UK 1.27 PTW patch on top of the UK PTW installation. The US patch will not work with the UK PTW disk.

The very last thing to check is whether or not you have a CIV3PTW folder in you CIV3PTW folder (if you see what I mean). In this case you will have to reinstall to your civ3 folder and the CIV3PTW folder will be created automatically.

As you can probably tell, I have had a few problems with my PTW installation myself.

 

[Ribannah]

So I see, but my problem is a different one.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Why, in conquered cities (no resistance) does it take only one unhappy citizen of another nationality to cause civil disorder? I am playing unpatched by the way.

 

[Grille]

What do you mean by "only one unhappy citizen of another nationality to cause civil disorder"? (Maybe you have a pop one town w/ an unhappy foreigner?)

A city gets in disorder if the number of unhappy citizens is bigger than the number of happy citizens, nationality is not relevant for this rule.

However, nationality might indeed play a role for unhappiness causes. You may click on an unhappy citizen on the city screen to get information about unhappiness reasons. Foreigners are unhappy if you're at war with their mother country.
Plus, AI likes to pop-rush or draft if possible, and you will get the penalty when you take the city. WW and missing temples etc might even increase unhappiness, so captured cities are rather unhappy (and eventually slip into disorder).

Btw, you SHOULD patch your game. Also, the stickied "Quick Answers" thread might be a better place for questions and (quick) answers.

 

[Ben E Gas]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
....... However there is a small, but important, point I would like to make about the following entry:

"This is not a game related comment. The concept of "water down the gene pool" is not meaningful. Mixing hitherto seperate populations enriches the gene pool. I think you are really talking about a cultural effect but this is difficult to find a good metaphor. Perhaps you should just say "increase the ratio of your own culture citizens".

I do not say this to be pedantic, but because the idea of watering down a gene pool seems to imply some concept of genetic perfection akin to discredited concepts of race. I am sure that is not what you meant, but it can be misconstrued (just reading it made me shudder) and its use reinforces people's misconceptions...........

I prefer not to water down the gene pool when I play civ3.

 

[slothman]

Scientific Civs get a free tech when entering a new age - which? The cheapest. Usually these are: Monotheism, Nationalism, Rocketry. If other civs already know some of these, other techs may get cheaper. Then, you get these. Engeneering[sic] seems to be common.

Wouldn't a tech get cheaper if more civs know it? I.E. a science civ gets rocketry free. Since 1 civ already knows it then it is cheaper. So unless other techs are researched, as opposed to gotten free, rocketry will be given out to all the science civs.
P.S. "Engeneering" is spelled wrong.

 

[daufoi]

let's say you have two equal units ready to go to battle. let's say two veteran swordsman. i have a regular warrior in the area and decide to attack with him first (to try to take the first hit point off my opponent's swordsman). my warrior not only loses and dies but fails to take the hit point from my opponent's swordsman. then i immediately attack with my swordsman (that is, on the same turn).

is my opponent's swordsman weakened at all from my warrior's attack? in other words, is my opponent's swordsman any closer to losing his first hit point from the warrior's attack? in other words, can a unit lose a FRACTION of a hit point?

Thanks,
daufoi

in other words, gracias.... in other words,.... j/k

 

[Globetrotter]

Not sure that the opponent's swordsman looses a fraction of a hit point. I once had a full column of warriors fall in front of a couple of spearmen.
However, if you search a bit through the creation and customization forum, you will find a very nice Combat Calculation probability.
I advise you to go there and have a look at it.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by daufoi
let's say you have two equal units ready to go to battle. let's say two veteran swordsman. i have a regular warrior in the area and decide to attack with him first (to try to take the first hit point off my opponent's swordsman). my warrior not only loses and dies but fails to take the hit point from my opponent's swordsman. then i immediately attack with my swordsman (that is, on the same turn).

is my opponent's swordsman weakened at all from my warrior's attack? in other words, is my opponent's swordsman any closer to losing his first hit point from the warrior's attack? in other words, can a unit lose a FRACTION of a hit point?

Thanks,
daufoi

in other words, gracias.... in other words,.... j/k

As I understand it, no, your opponent's swordsman is unchanged after the warrior's attack if he didn't lose any hit points. It's generally not a good idea to attack with the weak units first, as the swordsman may go up one hit-point (e.g. from regular to veteran or veteran to elite) from its victory over the warrior, leaving you worse off AND having lost the warrior.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Help, I accidentally hit some button that made all of the interfaces clear off of my map (ie the thing that lets you talk to your advisors, the thing that lets you save, more importantly, the little minimap, etc.). How do I get that back on?

 

[Turner]

I think it's the delete key. Not sure tho.